Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

1. The plaintiffs case is that the promissory note sued upon was executed to his undivided uncle for monies advanced from the joint family-property. The District Munsif held that without a succession certificate the suit upon the promissory note is not sustainable. It was not seriously contended that his conclusion can be sustained, in so far as he has not given the plaintiff an opportunity of producing, a succession certificate. This procedure of the District Munsif is opposed to Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act and does not find support in any of the reported cases.

2. The important point argued by the learned vakils on either side is as to whether a succession certificate is necessary in the ease of debts due to a member of a joint family; and secondly, whether the fact that the document sued upon is a promissory note should make any difference in regard to the law upon the subject. The Act itself is designed to facilitate the collection of debts on succession. In Hindu law there is a clearly marked distinction between succession and devolution by survivorship, and as the preamble only refers to cases of succession, prima facie cases of survi