The acknowledgment of liability by a managing member of a family in a money lending business is binding on the other partners, and family properties of trading communities may be treated as trade assets.

1. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs the members of S.R.M.A.R. firm against the defendants members of the M: P. M.R. firm for the recovery of Rs. 24,036-0-6 due to the plaintiffs on account of dealings between them. Both of them are money lenders. The Subordinate Judge has passed a decre in favour of the plaintiff. Against this decree the defendants 1, 3 & 4 appeal. The first objection taken is that on the facts set out in the plaint the suit is not maintainable. There is an allegation in the plaint that any amount payable by the defendants should be made good out of the money deposited by R. M, R. M. firm with the plaintiffs through and to the order of one Chokkalingam Chetti who was a member both of the defendants firm and that of said R. M.R. M. firm. As to this it is sufficient to say that no discharge is either allowed by the plaintiffs or by the defendants. An agreement that the debt due may be discharged in a certain manner does not shew that the plaintiffs waived any other remedy which they might have. The plaintiffs case is that he has not been able to realize the debt in accordance with the agreement. On the other hand Chokkalinga Chetty himself has fraudulently taken steps to deprive him of that money. The defendants do not allege that the plaintiff has been guilty of any bad faith and it is found in Original Suit 157 which was heard about the same time that no such agreement had been proved. We therefore disallow this contention.

2. It is then argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove the debt. The plaintiffs account books show that the debt claimed is due. The second witness swears that the entries in the account books A to C are true entries of the transactions that really took place. They open with a debit entry of 45,154-7-3 against the defendants. It is argued that there is no evidence that this amount is really due as the accounts which give the details as to how this sum was made up have not been filed. But the same witness proves that it was the 6th defendant one of the managing partners of the defendants firm who directed him to debit this amount as due by the defendants firm.

3. We hold therefore that the plaintiffs accounts are corroborated and their claim is proved. It is next argued that defendants 2 to 5 are not partners and that the decree that has been passed in favor of the plaintiff to recover the sum due from the second defendant personally along with others and from the family properties of the defendants is wrong because it is only their share in the assets of the firm of M.P. M.R. that should have been made liable. Though no doubt the witnesses do not state in so many terms that the sons of the 1st defendant are partners their evidence is clear that the firm M.P. M.R. was a money lending business carried on by the 1st defendants family of which the defendants 3, 4, and 5 are members and another family represented by the 6th to 8th defendants. It was not alleged by the plaintiffs in the lower Court that it was only a certain portion of the property belonging to the 1st defendants family that was set apart for this business.

4. There is no issue raising that question and looking to the usual course of practice in such cases we have no doubt that in the case of these Nattukottai Chetties their family properties should be treated as trade assets. They are a trading community and they usually treat the family property as assets making no distinction between their family property and their trade assests. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we accept the finding of the Subordinate Judge which is also supported by the evidence of the witnesses.

5. The next contention is that the suit is barred by limitation. It is argued that the Exhibits E and E2 which acknowledge the defendants liability are not proved or signed by the 1st defendant and it is also argued that the 1st defendant is not a person authorised by the others to acknowledge the liability of the firm. The letter purpor