JUDGMENT Mitra, J. - This is an appeal in an action on a promissory note dated the 12th Kartik 1303. The maker was one Muraridhur Dey, the father of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The Defendant No. 4 was joined in the suit as the brother of Muraridhur. Muraridhur was the karta of a joint family consisting of Muraridhar himself and his brother, the defendant No. 4, who is since dead and is represented by his son who is the Appellant in this case. It is alleged in the plaint that Muraridhur, who was the eldest member or karta of the joint family, had a trading business which stood in his name but the income was spent for the benefit of the joint family and that money was borrowed by him for the purpose of carrying on the said business. The defence of the Defendant No. 4 was that the family was not joint but separate, that the money was harrowed by Muraridhur for his own benefit and that it was not spent for the benefit of the family. 2. The Subordinate Judge passed a decree against Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 only, holding that Defendant No. 4 did not borrow the money and was not benefited by the loan and that he had no concern with it. 3. The Plaintiffs appealed and the District Judge decreed the suit and the appeal against all the Defendants holding that the family of the Defendants was joint, that Defendant No. 4 must be presumed to have been benefited by the loan made by the eldest member or karta of the family and that there is a presumption of authority of the karta of the family to contract a debt which would bind the other members. We cannot agree with the District Judge in his view that the karta of a joint family has presumably authority from the other members of the family to contract a debt and that the debt contracted by him is presumably for the benefit of the other members of the family. We cannot agree with the District Judge in his view that the karta of a joint family has presumably authority from the other members of the family to contract a debt and that the debt contracted by him is presumably for the benefit of the other members of the family. The proposition may be true as regards the sons in a Mitakshara family as to debts contracted by the father but not as regards the members of a family other than the sons The District Judge ought to have gone into the facts of the case as they were alleged in the plaint and attempted to be proved by the evidence. We accordingly remand the case to him for a finding on the following points: (1) whether the trading business was a joint family business, (2) whether Muraridhur gave the note for the purposes of trading business of the family, and (3) whether the amount covered by the note was appropriated for the purposes of the said trading business. If he finds that Muraridhur acted for the purposes stated in the plaint, Defendant No. 4 and his legal representative, the Appellant before us, will be liable in the same way as the maker of the note himself and his legal representatives. The costs will abide the result.