Only the makers of a promissory note are liable unless explicitly stated; mere family or partnership connections do not establish liability.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddapah, in O.S. No.49 of 1954 on the file of his court. The appellant instituted the suit aforesaid against the six respondents in this appeal for the recovery of the money due under a promissory note executed by defendant., 1 and 4 in the action on 31/03/1953 marked as Ex. A - 3 in the case.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants 2 and 5, who are brothers, started a yarn business under the name and style of "Soma Venkatayya Gari Narasiah", and that they have been carrying on the business for the benefit of their two respective families. Defendants 1 and 3 are the sons of the second defendant. Defendants 4 and 6 are the sons of the 5th defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that, for the benefit of the said joint family business, the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 31/03/1949, though the promissory note executed on that date was actually signed only by defendants 1 and 4. Some payments were made on that promissory note and, eventually, a fresh promissory note was executed on 31/03/1952 by defendants 1 and 4 in renewal of the prior promissory note for the amounts due thereon. The plaintiff alleged that the debt was for the benefit of the partnership business and for the respective joint families of the second and fifth defendants, that defendants 1 and 4 acted only as representatives of their respective joint families and, as such, all the defendants were liable to discharge the debt due on the promissory note, Ex. A - 3.

3. The fourth defendant, one of the executants of the suit promissory note, did not contest the suit and was set ex parte. The first defendant filed a written statement, alleging that he has no concern with the management of the business or family affairs of the second defendant. He, however, confessed to a judgment, but prayed that the amount may be directed to be paid by him in instalments of Rs.1000/- per annum. The second defendant filed a written statement, stating that the promissory note was executed only by defendants 1 and 4 for their business and it was not for the benefit of the second defendant, nor was it executed on behalf of and for the benefit of the joint family. He also denied that he and his two sons were joint in status. The third defendant denied all knowledge of the promissory note, and stated that he was not liable to discharge the debt. The fifth defendant in his written statement denied that the debt was incurred for the partnership business started and conducted by defendants 2 and 5, and that it was for the benefit of the respective joint families.

4. The learned Judge, on a review of the evidence, found that only defendants 1 and 4 who were the executants of Ex. A - 1 and its renewal, under Ex. A - 3 were liable, and that all other defendants were not. He granted a decree against defendants 1 and 4 and dismissed the suit as regards the other defendants.

5. In this appeal, Mr. R. Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the business, for which the loan was taken, was the business of the two joint families represented by the respective branches of defendants 2 and 5, and that as the suit promissory note was executed by defendants 1 and 4 only as representing the partnership and the joint families of their respective branches, a decree should have been granted by the learned Judge against all the defendants.

6. This is a suit based not upon the original debt but on a promissory note, Ex. A - 3. A perusal of the promissory note shows that it was executed on 31/03/1952 by the first and fourth defendants for a s