JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a simple money-bond. The bond was made in favour of three persons Ram Kishore and Sheo Chand (the plaintiffs) and one Ram Baran since deceased. The remaining two plaintiffs are the own brothers of Ram Baran. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs' suits upon the ground that all the members of the joint Hindu family to which the plaintiffs belonged were not made plaintiffs. The lower appellate Court considered that not having been made plaintiffs in the first instance, it was too late to add them when the case was before him because of limitation. The only question for decision is whether or not the view taken by the Courts on the question of parties was correct. The Court below has rightly considered that the answer to the question depended upon whether or not the present plaintiffs could have given a good discharge. It must be admitted that if Ram Baran had not died, the three persons in whose favour the bond was made could have sued upon it without making any of the other members of the family plaintiffs. 2. On the finding of the Court below that the family was joint and that the bond was joint family property, it would seem that plaintiffs 1 and 2 (that is, the survivors of the three in whose favour the bond was made) could have sued alone. If the members of a joint family allow three members to represent them and one dies, the survivors continue to represent them. In the suit however the brothers of Ram Baran were most properly added as plaintiffs, being the only persons who could have set up the case that Ram Baran had a specific interest in the bond. We allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of both the Courts below and decree the plaintiff's claim with costs in all Courts.