Abdur Rahim, J.

1. Here the father of the defendants 2 to 4 at the time when they were living as members of the joint family was incurring debts, and it was thought advisable in the interests of defendants 2 to 4 who were minors at the time that there should be a partition. Accordingly a partition was effected. The two promissory notes sued upon were executed before the partition. The question for decision arises as to whether the properties which the defendants 2 to 4 received on partition are liable for those debts. In my opinion the matter is really concluded by a recent decision of this Court in Peda Venkanna v. Srinivasa Deekshatulu (1917) I.L.R. 41 M. 136 where the previous authorities on the subject were referred to and discussed. The learned Judges held that after division of the family properties, the creditors of the father suing upon a debt which was incurred by the father before partition but which was not a charge upon the family property the sons share of the family property as alloted to him in the partition would not be liable for those debts. Mr. Varadajajulu Naidu, the learned vakil for the respondents, suggested a distinction in regard to a case where the