1. The point in this case is this. There was a retain Gurusami Naicken who was a member of a joint Hindu family. That man was carrying on a trade in which admittedly the joint family was concerned. In the Cause of the made, Gurusami Naicken executed a promissory note in favour of a certain Chockalinga Padayachi in February 1909. It is not disputed, as I have said, that that promissory note was in respect of a trade debt incurred in the family trade. By subsequent endorsements, the note came to be held by a certain Ayyasami Pillai as holder and endorsee and he is the plaintiff in the present action.

2. So far as Gurusami Naicken, the 1st defendant, is concerned, there is no difficulty, but the plaintiff has also joined and sought to get a judgment against the 2nd defendant, who is the elder brother of Gurusami Naicken, the 1st defendant. The story raised by the plaintiff is this. He says; "This was a family trade concern and you, Gurusami Naicken, in executing this promissory note in respect of a trade debt were thereby acting on behalf of the family and the other members of the family are liable on that note so executed by you." The 2nd respondent in this petition takes up t