Oldfield, J.

1. Reason has not been shown for dissent from the statement of the law by Bashyam Iyengar, J. in Periasami v. Krishna Ayyan (1901) I.L.R. 25 M. 431 that "a payment out of Court to one only of several joint decree-holders cannot bind the others," unless he was also constituted by them an agent for the purpose; and, as explained by the learned Judge with reference to the case before him, the mere fact that one of the joint decree-holders is the managing member of the family consisting of the joint decree-holders will not empower him to give a discharge of the decreedebt without the concurrence of the remaining members It has not been shown how any relevant distinction can be drawn between the position of a manager and that of a member of a partnership in this respect. The conclusion must therefore be against the validity of the payment to two out of the three partners pleaded by the Judgment-debtor in this case.

2. As the payment pleaded would not in any event be valid, it is useless to consider whether the lower Court should have enquired whether it was made.

3. The appeal must therefore be allowed and the Lower Courts orders be set aside, E.A. No. 358 of 1914, bei