Judgement Appeal (No. 59 of 1932) from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces (September 26, 1930) reversing a decree of the Additional District Judge of Yeotmal. The appellants instituted a suit against the respondents claiming payment of two promissory notes each for Rs.4000 dated May 11 and July 20, 1925, with interest. The notes were drawn by one Pandurang in favour of the appellants. The plaintiffs case was that Pandurang was karta of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his father, brother, and brothers son, and as such was in charge of a family business of money lending and cultivation. Pandurang died before the suit was brought. The defendants were his widows, as his representatives, his father (since dead), his brother and his brothers son. The respondents father and brother alone filed written statements denying their liability. The trial judge made a decree of the sum claimed ; he held that Pandurang borrowed the money as manager of the family for the purpose of the business, and that the debts were binding on the defendants. On appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner the decree was reversed and the suit dismissed. Law. Rep. 61 Ind. App. 90 ( 1933- 1934) Abdul Majid Khan V. Saraswatiba1 228 The learned Judicial Commissioner doubted whether it was established either that Pandurang was karta or that the business was a joint family business; assuming, however, those facts in favour of the plaintiffs, the suit failed in the absence of satisfactory evidence that the loans were taken for any necessary family purpose. 1933. Oct. 27, 30. Jinnah for the appellants. The evidence established that Pandurang was carrying on the joint family business. That being so he had authority to borrow for the purposes of the business, and there is a presumption of fact that the money was properly borrowed for that purpose Niamat Rai v. Din Dayal (( 1927) L. R. 54 I. A. 211.) ; Raghunathji Tarachand v. Bank of Bombay (( 1909) I. L. R. 34 B. 72.) ; Mahabir Prasad Misr v. Amla Prasad Rai. (( 1924) I. L. R. 48 A. 364.) It is submitted that the presumption arises although the notes were in the name of Pandurang only. Even if the presumption does not arise, the evidence shows that the transaction was for the purposes of the business. (( 1924) I. L. R. 48 A. 364.) It is submitted that the presumption arises although the notes were in the name of Pandurang only. Even if the presumption does not arise, the evidence shows that the transaction was for the purposes of the business. The respondents did not appear. Oct. 30. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD THANKERTON. The appellants in this case are the plaintiffs in an action on two promissory notes for sums of Rs.4000 each executed in or about the year 1925 by one Pandurang who died before the suit was brought, and the suit is brought against the surviving members of the joint family. It may be taken as established by the concurrent findings of the Courts below that at the time Pandurang was the karta of the joint family, and although the Appellate Court was not quite satisfied in the matter, their Lordships are prepared to assume that it was necessary for the proper conduct of the joint family business that money should be borrowed from time to time in such a way on promissory notes. That being so, as is established by a judgment of this Board, it would be within the authority of the deceased as karta to borrow money in his own name for the purpose of the family business. The question then remains whether the two sums here in question were debts incurred by the deceased as karta of the joint family business, or in his own individual capacity. The promissory notes were signed by Pandurang in his own name and not in the name of the firm, and in their Lordships opinion the promissory notes being signed by Pandurang in his own name is equally consistent either with a borrowing by him for his own individual purposes, or a borrowing for the purposes of the joint family business, and they are unable to accept the argument for the appellants, which was dealt with very fully and clearly by their counsel, Mr. Jinnah, that that state of facts would raise a presumption that the borrowing was for the purpose of the joint family business. It then remains to consider whether the plantiffs have proved that these particular sums were borrowed by the deceased for the purpose of the joint family business. Jinnah, that that state of facts would raise a presumption that the borrowing was for the purpose of the joint family business. It then remains to consider whether the plantiffs have proved that these particular sums were borrowed by the deceased for the purpose of the joint family business. On that matter it is unnecessary to go through the evidence in detail, because the Appellate Court have dealt with it fully, and their Lordships see no reason to differ from the conclusion at which they arrived, that the evidence is insufficient to prove the plaintiffs case. It is right to observe that the learned trial judge does not appear to have directed his mind towards the point which was made the subject of the unfavourable decision to the appellants in the Appellate Court, and which has been the main subject of the argument before their Lordships. Accordingly, their Lordships agree with the conclusion of the Appellate Court, and they will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed.