( 1 ) THIS is a defendants second appeal on a reference made to us by a learned Single Judge of this court. The suit giving rise to this appeal had been filed, within limitation, by Ram Swamp, on the basis of a Hundi in favour of Ram Swarup, the father, and Jagdish Prasad, his minor son. Jagdish Prasad, who was a minor at the time the suit was instituted, did not join the suit, nor was he arrayed as a defendant. After the expiry of the period, allowed by the law of limitation in the normal course, for the institution of a suit by a folder of a negotiable instrument, Jagdish Prasad, the minor son, who was still a minor, also joined as a plaintiff. The only plea with which we are concerned was that, inasmuch as Jagdish Prasad was a holder of the Hundi but had not joined the suit as a plaintiff within limitation, the suit was barred, and was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The trial Court took the view that the suit was not barred with the result that a decree was granted in plaintiffs favour. That decree was affirmed by the Court below, whereafter the defendant filed the present second appeal.

( 2 ) WE have perused the pleadings of the plaintiffs and we find that it is a representative suit filed initially by Ram Swarup alone in his capacity of Karta of a joint Hindu Family in respect of money advanced from the joint Hindu family funds. It is settled law that the manager of a joint hindu family has the power to give discharge for a debt due to the joint Hindu family. Reference may be made to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarda Prasad v. Lala jumna Prasad, AIR 1961 SC 1074 where the aforesaid principle has been recognised and it has been laid down that the managing member of the family can give a discharge of liability on behalf of the whole family including the minor sons. In view of this state of the law, learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that he could not challenge the proposition that Ram swarup, who initially filed the suit, was entitled to give a valid discharge of the liability under the Hundi which was the basis of the suit. His contention, however, was that, even though he could give a valid discharge of the liability under the Hundi, his son Jagdish Prasad should have joined him in instituting the suit, and that unless this was done the suit was not maintainable at the instance of Ram Swarup alone. In our opinion, this contention has no force. Any person who can give a valid discharge of the liability under a negotiable instrument must be held entitled to sue, and there appears no reason why a suit at the instance of such a person should not be held to be maintainable. The defendant would, thereafter, be completely protected from any claim on the basis of that negotiable instrument. The decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rai Ram Kishore v. Ram Prasad, AIR 1952 All 345 (FB), contains an exhaustive discussion of this principle and the decided, cases bearing thereon. After a discussion of those cases the conclusion is recorded at page 248, col. 2, in the following words: "it is perfectly clear that the ratio decidendi in all these cases was that the right of suit on ft promissory note vested in the person who could give a valid discharge to its maker or acceptor, and that it was not essential that, in order to maintain a suit on the basis of a promissory note, the plaintiff must, on the face of the instrument, be the payee or the holder or the holder in due course. " the position in the present case stands on a better footing inasmuch as the plaintiff (Ram swarup) was a holder of the Hundi, and the only other holder of the Hundi, viz. , his minor son jagdish Prasad, was a member of the joint Hindu family of which plaintiff Ram Swarup was the karta. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the right of suit on the Hundi vested in Ram Swarup inasmuch as he could give a valid discharge of the liability under that Hundi. We are, therefore, un