JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. This is a slit for the price of goods sold and delivered to the defendants. The plaintiffs sue as the proprietors and managers of a firm styled Jawala Nath Kashi Ram, who carry on business in the city of Benares in silk, woolen and other goods. The defendants are Zemindars, residing at Rangpur in Bengal. It appears that the business of the plaintiffs is an ancestral business and is carried on by the plaintiffs as managers of it. It was with the plaintiffs that the agreement for the sale of the goods, the price of which is sought to be recovered in this suit, was entered into. Two points have been raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant. It is not disputed that the goods were sold and delivered, but it is said that the business of the plaintiffs being an ancestral business, and there being other members of the family interested in it, who are not parties to the suit, the suit must fail. The other point raised is in regard to the interest which has been allowed upon the price of the goods which were sold more than three years before the suit was instituted. 2. As to the first point, it appears that the plaintiffs were the managers of the firm, that the transaction was entered into with them alone, and so far as it, appears they never disclosed that any other person had any interest in the firm, This being so, it appears to us upon the; authorities that the plaintiffs alone were justified in suing in as much as they really acted in the transaction as agents for the members of the partnership, who were not parties to the suit. The rule of law which governs a case such as this is stated in the judgment in the case of Bungsee Singh v. Soodist Lall,[1881] I.L.R., 7 Cal., 739. In that case a mortgage bond was executed in the name of the plaintiff alone, he being one member of a joint Hindu family. It was held there, that he was, entitled to sue as a person, who, contracted not only on behalf of himself but on behalf of the other members of the family. 3. In that case a mortgage bond was executed in the name of the plaintiff alone, he being one member of a joint Hindu family. It was held there, that he was, entitled to sue as a person, who, contracted not only on behalf of himself but on behalf of the other members of the family. 3. The principle applicable to the case is laid down in a number of decisions which are quoted in that case, and amongst others one of the Privy Council, in the case of Agacio v. Forbes[1861] 14 Moore's P.O. Cases, 160, in which it was held that one partner with whom personally a contract was made, was entitled to sue upon the contract in his own name, without joining his co partners as plaintiffs. The same principle is to be found embodied in the Indian Contract Act, s. 230. That section lays down that “In the absence of any contract to that effect an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them.” But then it is provided that such a contract shall be presumed to exist, in, among other cases, a case “where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal.” It has not been, here, expressly pleaded and there is no evidence to show that the plaintiffs did, at the time when the goods were sold to the appellant, disclose the names of other members of the partnership, that is, the other members of the joint family, who were not parties to the transaction. This contention, therefore, of the learned Advocate for the appellant, in our opinion fails. 4. As regards the question of interest the learned Subordinate Judge disbelieved two of the witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs in support of an alleged contract for payment of 12 per cent, interest. But assuming it to be the case that these are not Creditable witnesses, we have in addition to them the evidence of the plaintiff, Nathu Mall, who distinctly says that at the time when the goods were sold, the defendant was informed that interest would be chargeable, if the goods were not paid for on delivery. His evidence is sufficient to establish an agreement to pay interest. His evidence is sufficient to establish an agreement to pay interest. The learned Subordinate Judge has not allowed interest at the rate of 12 per cent, but thought equitable and right to allow interest at 6 per cent, and has so directed. We think that he has acted properly in so doing, though the ground which he has given for the allowance of interest is not in our opinion satisfactory. The ground which entitles the plaintiffs to interest is the fact that there was at least an implied agreement between the parties that interest would be chargeable after the delivery of the goods. 5. For these reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs; The appellant must also pay the costs of this appeal of the respondent, Kunwar Hari Das Rat Chaudhari, as he was unnecessarily made a party, the ground alleged in the memorandum of appeal for making him a party not having been supported.