JUDGMENT

Mya Bu, J - A joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law carried on a moneylending business at Mandalay. The family consisted of S.M. Ramanathan Chettyar and his two minor nephews, S.M. Ramanathan Chettyar, the only adult member, being the karta. On 9th March 1931, when the family was carrying on its business at Mandalay by their agent, Raman Chettyar, the defendant-appellant executed a promissory note in favour of "S.M. Raman Chettyar". Subsequently, S.M. Ramanathan Chettyar was adjudicated insolvent by the District Court of Mandalay, whereupon the plaintiff-respondent, Official Receiver of Mandalay, became receiver of the estate of the insolvent. The plaintiff-respondent then filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal for recovery of the amount due on the promissory note. The suit, as originally framed, was on the footing that Raman Chettyar was the agent of the family, and that the promissory note was one in favour of the family, the plaintiff-respondent claiming to sue as receiver of the estate of the "S.M. Firm". At the conclusion of its first trial the learned trial Judge held that the promissory note was in favour of S.M. Raman Chettyar; that S.M. Ramanathan Chettyar was the insolvent and not the S.M. Firm; and that S.M. Raman Chettyar was not proved to be the agent of S.M. Ramanathan Chettyar when the promissory note was executed by the defendant, with the result that a decree was passed dismissing the suit. Against that decree the plaintiff-respondent filed an apppeal, being R.K. Banerjee v. S.M.N. Ahmad reported in A.I.R. 1935 Rang. 327. That appeal was disposed of by a judgment of a Bench of this Court in which it was held inter alia as follows:

Moreover, the nature of the right of the Official Receiver to sue on a promissory note due to the S.M. Firm depends upon whether that firm is a joint Hindu family or is a contractual partnership. If it is a joint Hindu family, then Ramanathan, as karta of this family, could sustain a suit on the promissory note, and the Official Receiver would derive a right of suit through Ramanathan.

2. The result of that appeal was that the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance were set aside and the suit was remanded to that Court for re-hearing after the Official Receiver had been given an opportunity to amend the plaint. The plaintiff-respondent having amended the plaint by setting out the facts which were considered to be essential to establish the plaintiff's right to sue on the promissory note the defendant duly pleaded to the plaint as amended. The pleadings gave rise to an issue as to whether S.M. Ramanathan Chettyar had been adjudicated in his personal capacity or as the managing partner of the S.M. Firm or as karta of a joint Hindu family. The learned trial judge having found that S.M. Ramanathan Chettyar had been adjudicated an insolvent as the adult member or partner of the firm, and that he was the manager or karta of the S.M. Firm, decreed the plaintiff's suit: hence the present appeal by the defendant. It is a common ground that the S.M. Firm is not a firm of contractual partnership but a joint Hindu family consisting of Ramanathan Chettyar and two minor sons of his deceased brother, and that Ramanathan Chettyar was the manager or karta thereof at all times material to this suit. It is also common ground that the promissory note is one in favour of the joint Hindu family: K.S.A.V. Chettyar Firm v. Mahmoo A.I.R. 1935 Rang. 81. The adjudication of S.M. Ramanathan Chettyar was made by the District Court of Mandalay on a petition presented by some creditors for the adjudication of four persons named in the petition, the first being Ramanathan Chettyar, the second and third the minor members, and the fourth the then agent, (Ninappa Chettyar), of the joint Hindu family, which was described as a 'firm'. In making the order of adjudication the learned District Judge observed:

I am, therefore, bound to adjudicate respondent 1 debtor, S.M. Ramanathan