JUDGMENT Suhrawardy, J. - The facts giving rise to the suit out of which this appeal arises, are that there was a partnership firm composed of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 under the name and style of S. D. Misser and Company, carrying on business as sub-contractors under one Mr. A. H. Doran. On the 6th February, 1923 one of the partners of the firm of S. D. Misser and Company, namely, the Defendant No. 1, executed a note of hand in favour of the Plaintiff for Rs. 1,000 for amounts received on the 30th January, 1923, and 7th February, 1923. On the 16th February, 1923, the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 took Defendant No. 3, the Appellant P. D. Sarma as their partner and continued the business thenceforward under the name and style of P. D. Sarma and Company. The Plaintiff brought the present suit against all the Defendants, that is, the three partners of the new firm, on the pro-note. The suit was not contested by the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the Defendant No. 3 alone resisted the suit by pleading that as the loan was taken before he joined the partnership business, he was not liable to pay under the law. The learned Munsif who tried the suit, decreed it against the Defendant No. 1 alone and dismissed it against the other Defendants, holding apparently that as the promissory note was executed by the Defendant No. 1, he alone was liable for the debt. There was an appeal by the Plaintiff and the suit was decreed against all the Defendants." There was a second appeal to this Court by the Defendant No. 3 and the judgment of the lower Appellate Court was set aside and the case sent back to that Court for a re-hearing on the ground that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court was not according to law. On the case coming on for hearing before the lower Appellate Court on remand it was again decreed by that Court against all the Defendants. The Defendant No. 3 appeals to this Court. Three points have been taken on hi3 behalf: (1) that on the promissory note and the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1, it should have been held that Defendant No. 1 was alone liable for the debt; (2) that under secs. The Defendant No. 3 appeals to this Court. Three points have been taken on hi3 behalf: (1) that on the promissory note and the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1, it should have been held that Defendant No. 1 was alone liable for the debt; (2) that under secs. 249 and 251 of the Indian Contract Act, the Defendant No. 3 who became a partner of the firm after the debt was contracted by the old firm, is not liable for it; and (3) that there was no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 3 and so the former cannot issue the latter on a contract with other parties even though the Defendants, the partners of the new firm, had agreed among themselves on the liability of all the partners for antecedent debts. 2. As regards the first point the Court below has come to a finding of fact upon the evidence and the circumstances of the case. The learned Subordinate Judge says " I find that the loan was taken on behalf of the firm S. D. Misser and Company and that the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are both equally liable." That finding ought to set at rest the question as to whether the loan was contracted by the Defendant No. 1 alone or by the firm. 3. The lower Appellate Court has also answered the second and the third questions by his finding that the Defendant No. 3 was liable for the debt as he took upon himself all the rights and liabilities of the old firm. The facts found are that the bills that were submitted to Mr. Doran by the firm S. D. Misser and Company for works done, before the third Defendant entered into the partnership, with the help of the money borrowed from the Plaintiff, were all cashed by the Defendant No. 3 and the amounts due on the bills, were received by him for which he granted receipts; and that all the assets and liabilities of Misser and Company were assigned to Sarma and Company. Considering the whole evidence of the case the learned Subordinate Judge came to this conclusion: I am fully convinced that though on the date of the loan in suit he was not a partner of the firm, yet when he joined the firm later on he was assigned all the rights and liabilities of the old firm thus constituting a novation of contract and as such he is liable equally with the other Defendants. 4. The law as embodied in sec. 249 is perfectly clear and it lays down that the mere fact that a certain person entered into a partnership business as a partner, cannot make him liable for the debts incurred before he so entered. Ram Chandra Sahu v. Kashim Khan (1928) 88 C. W. N. 874 . But to determine whether an incoming partner becomes liable to an existing creditor of the firm, two questions have to be considered:-(1) Whether the new firm has assumed the liability to pay the debt; (2) whether the creditor has agreed to accept the new firm as his debtors, and to discharge the old partnership from its liability, (Pollock's Digest of the Law of Partnership, page 66). 5. Now with regard to the first point, as I have said the learned Subordinate Judge has in more than one place, observed that all the assets and liabilities of Misser and Company were assigned to Sarma and Company and that as a matter of fact the Appellant actually received payments for the works done before he joined the partnership on the 16th February, 1923. It cannot be laid down as a general rule of law, without any exception, that a new partner cannot in any circumstance, be liable for the debts incurred by the firm before his admission as a partner. In Shewak Mahtoon v. J. Joseph 9 C. L. B, 31 (1881) the learned Judges observed :-" It is true that a newly admitted partner under the section in question (sec. 249 of the Indian Contract Act) does not ordinarily become liable for the existing debts. But it has no application to a case where, by the understanding between the parties, a person admitted as a partner becomes entitled to the profits and liable for the debts accruing to and incurred by the firm before his admission." The view taken in that case has been expressed in rather wide language. But it has no application to a case where, by the understanding between the parties, a person admitted as a partner becomes entitled to the profits and liable for the debts accruing to and incurred by the firm before his admission." The view taken in that case has been expressed in rather wide language. But the law affirmatively established by the authorities is thus stated in Lindley on Partnership, 9th Edition, p. 276: "An agreement, by an incoming partner to make himself liable to creditors for debts owing to them before he joined the firm may be, and in practice generally is, established by indirect evidence. The Courts, it has been said, lean in favour of such an agreement, and are ready to infer it from slight circumstances." The learned author goes on to add: " An agreement to be proved is an agreement with the creditor; and of such an agreement an arrangement between the parties is of itself no evidence." This principle has been more elaborately expressed in the leading case of Rolfe v. Flower L. B. I. P. O. 27., by Lord Chelmsford at p. 40, where it is said that the question whether an incoming partner is liable for the debts of the firm incurred before his admission, is not to be decided upon probabilities but upon evidence, although much evidence is not required to establish the assumption by the new firm of the debts of the old; and for this view he relies on a number of old cases. The learned Lord Chancellor further notes the nature of the evidence that may be sufficient to establish the liability of the new firm: " Not only was there a continuance of the former dealings of the old firm upon precisely the same footing and with the same books as before, but the liabilities of the old firm were regularly inserted in the balance-sheets of the new, and the assets of the old firm credited as belonging to the new, without any distinction between them." The evidence in this case is almost one-sided on this point. The witness No. 3 for the Plaintiff says that" the firm of S. D. Misser and Company was, about the middle of February, 1923, merged with the firm of P. D. Sarma and Company and its business together with all assets and liabilities and implements, etc., were assigned to the latter firm; that at the time of the assignment a list was prepared by P. D. Sarma himself of the assets and liabilities of the old firm and the amount advanced by the Plaintiff was entered in the books of the new firm." This evidence, which has been accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge who says "there is also sufficient oral evidence adduced by the other witness examined and since the Defendant No. 3 P. D. Sarma has not come forward on oath with any denial I see no sufficient reason to disbelieve the Plaintiff's case and the evidence thus adduced," is enough to satisfy the requirements as laid down by Lord Chelmsford in Rolfe's case L. B. I. P. O. 27.. Sec. 249 of the Contract Act must be read subject to any contract to the contrary. 6. The second question is as to whether the Plaintiff agreed to accept the new firm as his debtors. On this point the evidence of the witness above-mentioned is that the creditors were orally informed that their dues would be satisfied by P. D. Sarma and Company and the Plaintiff was so informed in the latter part of 1923. The information was given by P. D. Sarma to the Plaintiff at the works and the witness was present at the time. This evidence if accepted satisfies the law as stated in Lindley on Partnership, 9th Edition, p. 865:-" A creditor of one person does not. become the joint creditor of him and another who enters into partnership with him, merely because the two partners have agreed between themselves that the debts of each shall be the debts of both. Unless the creditor accedes to that arrangement, he is not bound by it, nor can he avail himself of it; his position in fact is unaltered, he does not lose his old right, nor does he gain any new one." The doctrine is based on the well-known principle that a third party cannot sue on a contract though it is for his benefit, except under special circumstances. 7. 7. The law that the creditor is not bound by the arrangements between the partners new and old is more for the benefit of the creditor than to his detriment. If a partner retires after the debt was contracted with an arrangement with his co-partners for extinction of his personal liability, such an arrangement does not affect the right of the creditor who can hold all the partners who dealt with him liable. 8. In the present case however there is the direct evidence that the Defendant No. 3 undertook to pay the Plaintiff's dues and since there was no denial on oath by him, the Court below was right in holding that there was a novation of the contract and as such he was liable to the Plaintiff equally with the other Defendants. In my judgment the Appellant is liable in law as well as on equitable considerations. 9. All the points raised in this appeal on behalf of the Appellant fail and this appeal is dismissed with costs. Graham, J. I agree.