Curgenven, J.

1. The plaintiff, who appeals, sued upon a promissory note executed by one Narayya Appa Rao. Narayya Appa Rao died and the suit was brought against his father, the 1st defendant, and his sons, the 2nd and 3rd defendants, these three defendants forming a Hindu coparcenary. The question arose whether each and every one of these defendants could be made liable in respect of their shares of the family property. The learned Subordinate Judge tried the question whether the debt was borrowed by Narayya Appa Rao in his capacity as family manager and for family necessity, and answered it in the negative. He further came to the conclusion that the debt was not contracted for any illegal or immoral purpose, and the findings upon these issues have not been controverted before us. Notwithstanding the finding upon the latter issue, the learned Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that the shares of the 2nd and 3rd defendants, i.e., the sons of the executant of the note, are not liable for the debt, and that is the question arising in this appeal. His view is that the pious obligation of a son to discharge his fathers debt does not extend to a case where the family co