Krishnan Pandalai, J.

1. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 who are the sons of the 2nd defendant and brothers of the 1st defendant appeal. The 1st defendant executed a promissory note to the plaintiff when he was the managing member of the family of himself and his father and his brothers. He became insolvent and was . represented in the suit by the Official Receiver of Cuddappah. This suit was brought on the promissory note impleading all the members of the family including the insolvent and the Official Receiver. The suit was obviously unsustainable against the insolvent and the Official Receiver, because the debt was one provable in insolvency for which no suit could be maintained. It was therefore dismissed against the 1st defendant and the Official Receiver but decreed as against the other defendants on its being proved that the debt was incurred on behalf of the family and made realisable from their shares of the family property. This was the decree of both the Lower Courts.

2. The appellants contended before the Lower Court that the suit was not maintainable against them also in view of the insolvency of the 1st defendant which has the effect of vesting the Official Receiver with