Varadachariar, J.

1. The appellant obtained a decree against the 2nd defendant, in O.S. No. 71 of 1925 on a promissory note executed by the 2nd defendant. In execution of that decree he attached certain properties which formed the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff being the 2nd defendants minor younger brother. The plaintiff intervened with a. claim petition and contended that his share of the joint family properties should not be attached in execution. As that petition was dismissed he has filed the present suit for a declaration under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code.

2. The plaintiff rested his case on several grounds. One contention of his was that he and the 2nd defendant were divided in status and that the 2nd defendant could not have represented him at all. Another contention was that the promissory note was not executed for any purposes binding upon him and therefore his share could not be proceeded against. He also relied on the fact that he was not a party to O.S. No. 71 of 1925.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge has held against the first two contentions of the plaintiff and he has found that the promissory note was