JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants Gopi Ram, Shiv Prakash and Ashok Kumar have filed this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 31-10-1985 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu in Civil Suit No. 7/82. The brief facts are as under: 2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 M/s. Ashok Kumar Murari Lal (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiff firm) had instituted a suit against M/s. Ram Niwas Shiv Prakash (hereinafter to be referred as the defendant firm) and against the appellants with the allegations that the defendant firm was a joint family firm of the appellants and of Ram Niwas, who was the son of the appellant No. 1 and the brother of the appellants No. 2 and 3. It was alleged that the defendant firm had taken cloth on credit basis from the plaintiff firm during the period from 2-7-1979 to 6-2-1980 and a sum of Rs. 25,869-30 p. was due from the defendant firm to the plaintiff firm, but the said amount had not been paid. It was alleged that the defendant firm as well as the appellants, who are the members of the joint family firm and were carrying on business in the name and style of the defends firm were liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff fine with interest and costs. The suit was contested by the appellants on the grounds, inter alia, that the defendant firm belonged to their late brother Ram Niwas, who was the sole proprietor thereof and that they had never carried business as joint family members of the family of Ram Niwas, who had separated from the joint family of the appellants in 1971. The learned trial court framed the necessary issues and after recording the evidence produced by the parties and hearing their learned counsel, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff firm against the defendant fine and held that the appellants, being the members of the joint Hindu family, which was carrying on business in the name of the defendant Linn, were liable to pay the decretal amount to the plaintiff firm. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have approached this court by filing this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have approached this court by filing this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 4. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellants, by their learned-counsel, is that the finding of the learned trial court that the defendant firm was a joint Hindu family firm and the appellants were carrying on business as the members of the joint Hindu family in the name of the defendant firm is erroneous. 5. From the record I find that the appellants had produced on record a document dated 23-5-1973 '(Ex. A-9) showing that Ram Niwas had admitted that he had separated from the joint Hindu family of his father and had also mentioned that he had been carrying on the business as the proprietor and in the name and style of M/s. Ram Niwas Shiv Prakash-defendant firm since 1970 and that he had nothing to do with the joint family property and had surrendered his rights therein in favour of his father. Ex. A-10 is the registered general power of attorney dated 3-2-1975 executed by the deceased Ram Niwas in favour of his father Gopi Ram (appellant No. 1) and his brother Shiv Prakash (appellant No. 2) authorising them to conduct the business of the defendant firm on his behalf and to exercise his powers in relation thereto. Ex. A-11 is the certified 'copy of the assessment order dated 22-2-1974 made by the Income tax Officer, A-Ward, Jhunjhunu in respect of the assessment year 1972-73 which shows that the defendant firm was assessed as individual and Ex. A-12 shows that the said firm was assessed for the assessment year 1975-76 by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer on 20-12-1975 and the firm was assessed as the proprietary concern. Ex. A- 14 is the certificate issued by the Rajasthan Shop and Establishment Department showing that the defendant firm was registered as the proprietary concern of Rani Niwas son of Gopi Ram. Ex. A- 14 is the certificate issued by the Rajasthan Shop and Establishment Department showing that the defendant firm was registered as the proprietary concern of Rani Niwas son of Gopi Ram. Shiv Prakash (appellant No. 2) appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and has supported the case as made out in the written statement that the deceased Ram Niwas had separated from the joint Hindu family and had been carrying on the business in the name and style of the defendant firm as its proprietor and that neither he nor other appellants had to do anything with it except that they were having the power of attorney in their favour and had been managing the business and sitting on the shop some times. No evidence whatsoever has been produced to show that the appellants were in fact carrying on business as the members of the joint Hindu family in the name and style of the defendant fine and genuineness of the documents mentioned above was not challenged in cross-examination in any way. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that such documents are generally executed by the members of the joint family to avoid the liabilities, but this part of observation' is based on no evidence whatsoever produced on record by either of the parties and even no such suggestion was given to the DW-1 by the learned counsel for the plaintiff during the cross-examination. The learned trial court further inferred the joint ness of the appellants with the deceased in respect of the business of defendant firm on the ground that notice sent by the plaintiff firm was received by Gopi Ram-appellant No. 1 and no reply was sent thereto. It is not forthcoming as to what liability can be fastened on a person who simply receives a notice addressed to someone with which he is legally not concerned and with which he has no legal connection. It is not forthcoming as to what liability can be fastened on a person who simply receives a notice addressed to someone with which he is legally not concerned and with which he has no legal connection. In view of the above said documentary evidence which supports the case of the defendants as made out in the written statement and in the statement of Shiv Prakash-DW-1 and in absence of any evidence to contradict the case of the defendants-appellants, the learned trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellants were carrying on business along with the deceased as the members of the joint Hindu family in the name of defendant firm and, were liable to pay the decretal amount to the plaintiff. The finding of the learned trial court cannot be allowed to stand in view of what has been discussed above. The plaintiff-respondent, therefore, can have no remedy of recovering the amount in question from the appellants and, in this view of the matter, the decree passed by the learned trial court against the appellants is liable to be set aside. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, I accept this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree as far as it fastened the liability on the appellants and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff against the appellants. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******