In a trading family, the creditor can pursue the entire joint family properties whether put into venture or not. The junior members ipso facto do not become members of the partnership and are not clothed with certain rights and obligations.

Judgement

G. C. DAS, J. : Five different plaintiffs filed five different suits against certain defendants including the present appellants basing their claim on 5 different pro-notes. The suits were : Money Suit No. 20/235 of 1952; Money Suit No. 461/234 of 1952/55; Money Suit No. 75; Money Suit No. 84 of 1952 and Money Suit No. 110 of 1952. In the first two suits the two handnotes were executed by Manilal on behalf of Surajmal Manilal Firm whereas in the latter three suits the pronotes were executed in favour of the different plaintiffs by Pannalal, another partner of Surajmal Manilal Firm. All the 5 suits were heard together and were governed by one common judgment. In respect of the first 2 suits, the valuation being low appeals were preferred before the District Judge. In the latter three suits, the value being appealable to this Court, three appeals were filed before this Court. First appeal No. 82/58 arises out of money suit No. 75/52; First appeal No. 83/58 arises out of Money Suit No. 84/52; First appeal No. 84/58 arises out of the Money Suit No. 110/52. All these three appeals in this Court were made analogous and were heard together, and will be governed by this common judgment.

2. The plaintiffs in the three suits before us, though different, the defendants were common to all the suits. Defendant No. 1 in all these suits is a firm Surajmal Manilal. The other defendants being members of the family of Surajmal and Manilal are said to be partners of the above firm. Surajmal died in 1946 and Manilal died on the date on which the Money Suit No. 75 of 1952 was filed, and before Money Suits Nos. 84 and 110 of 1952 were filed in 1952. Surajmals son Bajranglal and his brother Pannalal are defendants. Tulsiram and Biswambar Dayal are the brothers sons of Manilal. They along with the sons of Manilal were added as defendants. All the three suits were based on three pro-notes, Exts. 4, 6 and 10, each for Rs. 5,000/- in respect of the three different plaintiffs and all the suit-pro-notes were executed by Pannalal on behalf of Surajmal Manilal Firm in the year 1949. Exhibit 6 was executed on April 21, 1949. Exhibit 10 was executed on July 20, 1949 and Exhibit 4 on May 26, 1949.

3. The plaintiffs case in all the suits was that Surajmall Manilal firm which is a partnership firm between the two joint families of Surajmal and Manilal, contracted the suit-loan by executing the aforementioned suit-pronotes by one of the partners of the firm for the necessities of their Firm. Since the dues remained undischarged, the suits were filed.

4. The son and brother of Surajmal and the sons and widow of Manilal did not contest the suits. Only Tulsiram and Biswambar Dayal who were the sons of Subhakaran, the brother of Manilal, contested the aforesaid suits. In essense, their defence was three-fold; (i) They had separated from Manilal long before the suit pro-notes were executed; hence they were not members of the joint family with Manilal at the time of the suit-transactions; (ii) They were never partners of Surajmal Manilal Firm and had no connection with the same; and (iii) The loans transacted by Surajmal Manilal even if true, did not benefit them in any way, and as such they cannot be made liable.

5. The learned Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, on a careful analysis of the evidence on record decreed the plaintiffs suit finding that the suit-transactions were genuine, execution on behalf of the firm and the passing of the consideration having been duly proved. He further found that the contesting defendants were joint with their uncle Manilal in 1949 and they were partners of the Firm Surajmal Manilal being members of the trading family and the contesting defendants are liable for the suit-claims to the extent of assets of the joint family in their hands. It is against this decree that the present First appeals were preferred.

6. Several contentions were raised before this Court by Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants. They are