JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - This is a Plaintiff's second appeal against the confirming judgments of the Courts below arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 992/- as damages. There was a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that the Defendants are to supply 100 tins of castor oil weighing 32 maunds at the rate of Rs. 89/- per maund the contract being dated 6th December 1950. The Defendants did not supply, on account of which the Plaintiff served a notice on 1st February 1951 demanding the Defendants to supply the contracted goods or to pay damages represented by the difference in prices of 6th December, 1950 and 21st February, 1951. No money or goods having been paid by the Defendants, the present suit has been brought on the basis of the difference in prices of the castor oil at Rs. 31/per maund. 2. The defence was that the Defendants could not fulfil the terms of the contract on account of their agent's negligence and on account of the stoppage of railway booking. This defence was negatived by both the Courts below. The third defence was that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the differences of rates on the dates 6-12-1950, the date of the contract and 21-2-1951, the date of the notice-but was entitled only to the difference in prices after a reasonable time, that is, 21st December 1950. The Courts below accepted this defence that in the event of success the Plaintiff would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 176/- on the basis of the difference in price on 6-12-1950 and 21-12-1950. 3. But the suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court of the ground that even though the three brothers of Ramnarayan are joint, the suit has been brought by Ramnarayan, the Karta of the family-not by all the co-parceners but by Hindu Mitakshara joint family firm. It is to be mentioned that the present appeal is only on the basis that the Plaintiff would be entitled to Rs. 176 only that is to say, if the appeal is allowed, the Plaintiff will not be entitled to recover Rs. 992/- as claimed but only to Rs. 176. 4. The position is indisputable that the suit is not hit by the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act as found by the lower appellate Court. 176 only that is to say, if the appeal is allowed, the Plaintiff will not be entitled to recover Rs. 992/- as claimed but only to Rs. 176. 4. The position is indisputable that the suit is not hit by the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act as found by the lower appellate Court. The suit has been brought by the Hindu Mitakshara joint family firm. It is manifest to me that the lower appellate Court has gone wrong in law in construing the suit. Substantially the suit appears to have been brought by the Hindu Mitakshara joint family through the managing member Sri Ramnarayan. I will quote the heading of the plaint "Messrs Ramdhandas. Ramkishandas a Hindu Mitakshara family firm having its place of business at Station Dock-yard, B.N. Rly. Cuttack through its Managing Member Sri Ramnarain etc". and also the first paragraph of the plaint which runs thus: The Plaintiff is a joint Hindu family firm and it carries on its business in grocery, spices, oils and other various kinds of commodities at Station Dock-yard, B.N. Rly., Cuttack through the Managing Member of the joint Hindu Mitakashara family Sri Ramnarain. Indeed there is a mention there that the Plaintiff is a joint Hindu family firm; but nevertheless in substance the suit is by the Hindu Mitakshara joint family and there does not appear to be any defect in the framing of the suit as it is through its managing member Sri Ramnarain. The learned lower appellate Court has committed a grave error of law in having completely ignored the feature that the first paragraph of the plaint has not been denied within the four corners of the written statement. The Plaintiff, therefore, was not called upon in the face of the admission of the position by the Defendants to prove that Ramnarain was the managing member. The position remains, therefore, that the Hindu Mitakshara joint family has brought the suit through the managing member and further the position is clear that the Hindu Mitakshara joint family was carrying on business in the name of its particular firm and it had contracted with the Defendants for the supply of 100 tins of castor oil as found by the Courts below. 5. 5. I would avail of this opportunity to clarify the position also that even if Ramnarain was not the eldest member of the family, particularly Karta of the family, as observed by the lower appellate Court, still it is quite conceivable that so far as this particular business is concerned Ramnarain would be in charge of it. A Hindu joint family may be carrying on several kinds of business and one member of that family, even though he may not be the Karta, may be in charge of the particular business. The person looking after that business must be deemed to be the manager of the family in respect of that business, If there was any contract with any outsider, so far as the business is concerned, the member of the family in charge of the particular business is entitled to bring a suit on behalf of the joint family. It is not necessary always that the member suing will describe himself as the Karta of the family as has been observed by the lower appellate Court. But even then, in the instant case before me, there is a categorical statement to the effect "through the managing member of the joint Hindu Mitakshara family Sri Ramnarain" which stands uncontroverted. In the aforesaid circumstances, in my view, the suit was regular and well framed and should not have been dismissed by the Courts below. 6. Mr. Rao, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, however, has urged that there has been a complete charge of the front in this second appeal as in both the Courts below the suit was fought by the firm. The contention does not appeal to me as I have already mentioned it is really a construction of the plaint itself as to the nature of the suit and I have observed above that the plaint very fairly construed means that the suit has been brought by Ramnarain as the managing member of the Hindu Mitakshara joint family carrying on a particular business. 7. In the above circumstances, therefore, the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts, below are set aside and the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 176/-. The Plaintiff is entitled to proportionate costs throughout. Leave to appeal prayed for by Mr. M.S. Rao, is refused. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed