Gandu Naiko @ Ramchandro Naiko and Others vs Akulo Das

Agarwala, J.—This appeal is by the defendants and arises out of a suit on a handnote for Rs. 100 executed by defendant 1 father of defendants 2 to 6. Defendant 1 denied the execution of the handnote and also 9 denied certain alleged payments in part satisfaction of the handnote. Defendants 2 to 6 denied that they were joint with defendant 1 or that defendant 1 was the karta of the family. Both the Courts below have found that defendants 2 to 6 are joint with their father, that the latter is the karta of the family, that he executed the handnote and that consideration for the handnote passed.

It is contended, however, that the suit being a suit on a handnote defendants 2 to 6 are not liable. For this contention reliance is placed on the decision of the Privy Council in Abdul Majid Khan v. Saraswati Bai AIR (1934) 1934. That was a suit on two hand notes executed by a person who was the karta of a joint Hindu family. The question that fell to be decided was whether the members of the joint family other than the karta could be made liable on the handnotes. The Privy Council investigated the question whether the other members of the family had benefited by the loan and having come to the conclusion that it was not proved that they had received any benefit from the loan it was held that they were not liable on the hand-notes.

That case has been explained by a Division Bench of this Court Baijnath Prasad and Others Vs. Binda Prasad Singh and Others, . The position deducible from this case is that ordinarily, as provided in the Negotiable Instruments Act, the only person liable on a handnote is the person who executes it.

In the case of a joint Hindu family, however, when a handnote is executed by the karta it is taken that the note is actually executed by the family through its karta so that it is the handnote of the whole family; but if the note was not for family necessity or benefited the members of the family other than the executant they cannot be made liable on it. With regard to a case where the members of the family other than the executant are the sons of the executant the position was thus stated in Baijnath Prasad and Others Vs. Binda Prasad Singh and Others, .

It seems obvious that if a person suing on a promissory note executed by a Hindu father impleads not only the father but also the son as a defendant on the doctrine of the Hindu law that a son is under a pious obligation to pay his father''s debts the Court may pass a decree not only against the father but also against the son.

So far as this Court is concerned, therefore, the position is clear that the sons of the executant of a promissory note, where the parties are Hindus and members of the joint family, are liable on the handnote. In the present ease it way neither pleaded nor proved that the debt incurred on the handnote was of such a nature as to exonerate the sons of the executant from their pious obligation.

There is, therefore, no merit in this appeal which must be dismissed with costs.

Chatterji J.

I agree.