Ramesam, J.

1. This Revision Petition arises out of Small Cause Suit No. 1399 of 1929 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Guntur in which the plaintiff sought to recover a sum of money due to him evidenced by the promissory note (Ex. A) which itself was in renewal of an earlier promissory note (Ex. A-1). Both these notes were executed by the defendants mother Venkayamma. In the body of the notes the minor defendants are described as the makers with the words "represented by their mother and guardian Venkayamma" but she signed the notes without any such description attached to her name. Ex. A-l itself was in renewal of an earlier promissory note (Ex. A-2) executed by the defendants father on the 28th February, 1922. According to the Hindu Law the sons are liable to pay their fathers debt to the extent of the joint family properties received by them from their father or other assets inherited by them from him. The District Munsif held that on a construction of the suit promissory note it was not intended to make the defendants liable. Referring to Subbanna v. Subbarayudu (1925) 50 M.L.J. 125 the learned District Munsif observed:

that the liability on a promissory