Honble MITAL, J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1975 delivered by Additional District Judge, Ajmer in Civil Original Suit No.48/71 where in the suit filed by Hira Chand Proprietor & Karta of Joint Hindu Family Firm Hina Chand Raj Kumar Gotewala was decreed for the recovery of Rs.14,500/- plus pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum against the appellants defendants No. 1 & 2 and also the defendant No. 3 i.e. respondent No.2 Ram Pal. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent Hira Chand expired and his legal heirs as shown in the cause title have been brought on record. It is not necessary to narrate the pleadings of the parties for the decision of this appeal because the appellants have challenged the finding of only one Issue No.5, which is to the following effect: 5. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to bring this suit as alleged in para 12 of written statement of defendant No.2 ? (2). The said Issue No. 5 was framed on the basis of the averments made in the cause title of the plaint showing the status of the plaintiff Hira Chand as Hira Chand s/o Seth Mathuralal Jain, Prop. and Karta of the Joint Hindu family business carried on in the name and style of` Hira Chand Raj Kumar Gotewala, at Naya Bazar, Ajmer. The appellant defendant Nemi Chand specifically denied in para No.12 of the additional pleas of his written statement the status of Hira Chand as the Proprietor & Karta of the Joint Hindu Family business carried in the name & style of Hira Chand Raj Kumar Gotewala, Naya Bazar, Ajmer and clearly averred that Hira Chand is not entitled to bring any civil action against him. (3). The learned trial court recovered the statement of plaintiff Hira Chand P.W.1, who was again examined in rebuttal of the said Issue No.5 on 8.5.75. Nemi Chand defendant also appeared as witness. The plaintiff Hira Chand also exhibited documentary evidence Ex.1 to Ex. 86. The learned trial Judge on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments decided all the issues including the Issue No. 5 in favour of the Plaintiff. We are only concerned with the correctness of the finding on Issue No.5 for the decision of this appeal. 86. The learned trial Judge on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments decided all the issues including the Issue No. 5 in favour of the Plaintiff. We are only concerned with the correctness of the finding on Issue No.5 for the decision of this appeal. The learned trial Judge observed that the evidence given by plaintiff Hira Chand is in- consistent because for the first time he stated that his father Mathura Lal is the Manager of the HUF and second time he said that he was the owner of the Firm Hira Chand Raj Kumar Gotewala. The learned Judge also observed that the plaintiff introduced himself as owner deliberately realising that the suit was not in fact instituted by the Manager of Hindu undivided family. It was also malafide. However, it was held that Hira Chand was actively conducting the business of Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his father and other members, which is also borne out from Ex. 84 to 86. The authority to manage the business can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and such authority need not be given in express terms. The learned Judge further observed that Hira Chand plaintiff in this case was acting as implied Manager to conduct business and to bind by his action other members then he could initiate legal action for the protection of the interest of Joint Hindu Family business by filing the suit to recover the dues. The learned trial Judge keeping in mind the principle that to advance the cause of justice the substance of the matter should be adhered to over the form to avoid hyper technical approach, came to the conclusion that plaintiff Hira Chand had the locus standi to file the suit and decided Issue No.5 accordingly. Since all the issues were decided against the defendants, the suit stood decreed as stated above. (4). I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the entire record of the case. None was present on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the statement of plaintiff Hira Chand recorded on 13.12.74 and in rebuttal on 8.5.75 are highly contradictory and it is not even established that the plaintiffs firm is a joint Hindu family firm. None was present on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the statement of plaintiff Hira Chand recorded on 13.12.74 and in rebuttal on 8.5.75 are highly contradictory and it is not even established that the plaintiffs firm is a joint Hindu family firm. It is not further at all made out that plaintiff Hira Chand is Karta of any such joint Hindu family firm as shown by him in the cause title. There is no proof on record that Mat- hura Lal because the plaintiff has not uttered a single word in his examination in chief about his adoption. It has also been brought on record to show that Hira Chand was taken in adoption by Mathura Lal and Hira Chand are living and messing jointly and there has been no partition. Therefore, there is no question of forming or becoming karta of Joint Hindu family firm by Hira Chand. The bills have been signed by his father Mathura Lal. There is no reliable evidence to infer that Hira Chand is the managing member of joint Hindu family business. In these circumstances the plaintiff Hira Chand was not competent to bring the suit. The learned trial Judge has committed grave error in drawing inference on the basis of Ex.84 to 86 that Hira Chand is managing the business of the firm. Otherwise also not being a Karta, he could not institute the suit. It is, therefore, submitted that the trial Judge has come to a wrong finding with regard to Issue No.5, which should be decided in favour of the defendants. As such the suit is vitiated and Hira Chand stands non-suited. (5). I have given my careful consideration to the above arguments and I have also gone through the case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the case law cited by the learned trial court in the judgment. (6). At this level, the important question arises for consideration is whether it is proved that the plaintiff firm is a joint Hindu family firm and further whether Hira Chand is Karta of the said firm Hira Chand Raj Kumar Gotewala and he is competent to file the suit in question. (6). At this level, the important question arises for consideration is whether it is proved that the plaintiff firm is a joint Hindu family firm and further whether Hira Chand is Karta of the said firm Hira Chand Raj Kumar Gotewala and he is competent to file the suit in question. Secondly, whether Hira Chand is the managing member of the joint Hindu family firm and exercised express or implied authority to conduct the business and if so the effect on his competency to bring the suit P.W. 1 Hira Chand was examined on 13.12.74 and cross examined regarding Issue No. 5. He stated that the joint Hindu family constitutes himself, father, mother, wife and children. He came in adoption to Mathura Lal 25 years ago. The plaintiff firm started business before 8 years and prior to that the firm existed in the name of Panna Lal Mathura Lal. He has categorically stated in portion A to B, if reproduced in English, that his father is the head of the family. The plaintiff firm belongs to the family. The capital was invested by Mathura Lal. He came in adoption and did not contribute any capital. It is only one business firm of his joint Hindu family. (7). I find that the above statement is diametrically opposite on the same facts to the statement of the plaintiff in rebuttal recorded on 8.5.75 where in chief examination he deposed, if reproduced in English, that he is the owner of business Hira Chand Raj Kumar. He conducts the sales and purchase and attends the government offices where he has been shown as owner. He also applied for registration in Sales Tax Department stating himself as owner. Thus, he has by this statement converted the status of plaintiff firm as a proprietorship firm. He has further categorically stated in cross examination that Hira Chand Raj Kumar is not joint Hindu family business. The joint Hindu family is of his own family. He is the owner of this business as well as Karta also. He lives with Mathura Lal Ji because he had come in adoption in his family. No partition has taken place. He has further categorically stated in cross examination that Hira Chand Raj Kumar is not joint Hindu family business. The joint Hindu family is of his own family. He is the owner of this business as well as Karta also. He lives with Mathura Lal Ji because he had come in adoption in his family. No partition has taken place. Thus, he has by the above statement completely changed the character of his joint Hindu family as well as the plaintiff firm because as per the above statement Mathura Lal is not member of the joint Hindu family though he admits that no partition has taken place. If it is so then without partition, his father also becomes the member of joint Hindu family and karta being father and senior most member of the family. But the plaintiff has tried to show that he is Karta consisting of his own family and when he was pointedly confronted to the portion marked A to B of his statement dated 13.12.74, he has again said that the former statement is correct in which he has said that Mathura Lal is the head i.e. Karta of his family. The above statement clearly shows that the plaintiff Hira Chand is trying to ride on two horses at the same time and in that process he has fallen flat on the ground. His statements obviously, as mentioned above are completely contradictory and he has deliberately created confusion about the constitution of the joint Hindu family and joint Hindu family business and its Karta in an attempt to project himself as karta of the business of Hira Chand Raj Kumar as shown in the cause title. But he has miserably failed to establish the fact that he is Karta of the said firm. Whereas the defendant appellant Nemi Chand has emphatically stated on oath that the Karta and owner of firm Hira Chand Raj Kumar, joint Hindu family firm is Mathura Lal. Hira Chand is not owner and Karta of this firm. Hira Chand has not gone in adoption to the family of Mathura Lal. Whereas the defendant appellant Nemi Chand has emphatically stated on oath that the Karta and owner of firm Hira Chand Raj Kumar, joint Hindu family firm is Mathura Lal. Hira Chand is not owner and Karta of this firm. Hira Chand has not gone in adoption to the family of Mathura Lal. In my view, the question of adoption is not so much directly in issue but considering the statements of plaintiff and the defendant Nemi Chand, I entirely agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that it has not been proved that Hira Chand is either Karta of joint Hindu family or Karta or proprietor of the said joint Hindu family firm. (8). Now, we will consider the second question formulated in the foregoing para ten. (9). Before we deal with the evidence on this aspect of the case, it will be appropriate to discuss here the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants and also referred by the learned trial Judge in his judgment. In Piarey Lal & Anr. vs. Mahadeo Prasad & Anr. (1), it has been laid down that when family carries on several businesses and junior member manages one of such businesses then his acts bind the whole family and karta. This situation develops because karta cannot manage personally all the businesses and he entrusts the business to junior member, who conducts it as Manager on behalf of Karta. Therefore, if Karta expressly or impliedly authorises the junior member to manage the business, the junior member on the basis of that express or implied authority carries on the busi- ness and on this principle he binds by his acts all the members of the family including Karta. While drawing difference between a registered firm and a joint Hindu family business firm, it has been held in Zujya Pascol Damel vs. Manmohandas Lallubhai Pratap & Ors. (2) that the provisions of Order 30 C.P.C. do not apply to a joint Hindu family firm. Actions have to be brought in the name of members of the family. In another case - Adapa venkatachalam & Ors. vs. Vemalepathi Venkateswara Rao & Ors. (2) that the provisions of Order 30 C.P.C. do not apply to a joint Hindu family firm. Actions have to be brought in the name of members of the family. In another case - Adapa venkatachalam & Ors. vs. Vemalepathi Venkateswara Rao & Ors. (3), the junior member was in charge of the family business and he had the implied authority of all other members to act and enter into transactions relating to the business, therefore, part payment made by him to save the debt contracted for the business of the firm would bind the other mem- bers. A similar view has been taken in K.M. Ramakrishna Mudaliar Vs. V.S.V. Manikka Mudaliar & Ors. (4) that a junior member conducting family business can mortgage or sell joint family property for debts and liabilities incurred in the course of that business. It is further held that even a junior member in charge of the family business will have all the rights and powers which are necessary for the proper conduct of the business exercised by a managing member. In Firm Murlidhar Banwarilal vs. Firm Kishore Lal Jagannath Prasad & Ors. (5) the defect was not considered of substance if it was not mentioned by the father that he was bringing the suit as manager. The same view has been held in Harphool Chand & Ors. vs. Firm Kishori Lal Jagannath Prasad & Ors. (6). (10). If has been enunciated in Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli vs. Gujrat Revenue Tribunal & Ors. (7) in para 12 that the senior member of the family is entitled to manage the family properties provided he is not incapacitated by illness or other sufficient cause, if the father resigns or in his absence the management devolves upon the eldest male member of the family. Thus the right to manage joint family property is created by birth and regulated by seniority. A junior member can deal with the joint family property only where Karta relinquishes his right expressly or impliedly or in the absence of the Karta in exceptional or in extraordinary circumstances. (11). This Court held as follows in Chunnilal vs. Kalu & Ors. Thus the right to manage joint family property is created by birth and regulated by seniority. A junior member can deal with the joint family property only where Karta relinquishes his right expressly or impliedly or in the absence of the Karta in exceptional or in extraordinary circumstances. (11). This Court held as follows in Chunnilal vs. Kalu & Ors. (8): ``The principle of Hindu Law is that the karta is entitled to take all steps for the preservation of the family and if it is necessary to carry on joint family business for the preservation of the family,the Karta can take all necessary steps to carry it efficiently. Sometimes a business cannot be managed by the Karta personally and other mem- bers of the family participate and manage the business with the express of implied consent of the karta. That such participation and management is with the consent of the Karta may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case. It was further held: ``If in the management of a joint Hindu family business there may be more than one manager the act of each of them are binding on the joint family. The learned Judge also observed: ``In my humble opinion, the aforesaid observations do not in any way modify the ancient rule of Hindu Law that junior members of the joint family are only bound by the acts of the manager and not of other members. It only extends the principle ingrained in that law that the manager has the authority to take all necessary steps for the sake of preservation of family. He may permit if necessary the junior mem- bers of the family to participate and manage the business and all the members of the joint Hindu family are bound by the acts of such junior members. Such an extension of old rule of Hindu Law is within permissible limits, looking to the modern conditions of conducting the business. If Hindu Law is to survive, such an extension of the doc- trine must meet the approval of courts of law, otherwise the strangers will find difficulty in conducting business with the joint Hindu family. Taking a rigid view of the matter will only hamper the development of Hindu Law in the modem conditions. Ancient sages while formulating the principles of Hindu Law never contemplated any rigidity in the matter. (12). Taking a rigid view of the matter will only hamper the development of Hindu Law in the modem conditions. Ancient sages while formulating the principles of Hindu Law never contemplated any rigidity in the matter. (12). Honble Supreme Court has enunciated in Union of India vs. Shree Ram Bohra & Ors. (9) that Hindu Law does not contemplate the existence of two Kartas. The Karta of the joint Hindu family is the manager of the family property. If a junior member carries on business on behalf of the family, it will not mean that he is doing so as karta of the family. The karta and the members of the joint Hindu family can confer authority on a member of the family to look after the affairs of joint Hindu family and that member represent the joint Hindu family to the extent such authority conferred by karta or members of the joint Hindu family. (13). The preposition of law which emerges from the above cited decisions is that there cannot be two kartas of a joint Hindu family but karta or the members of the joint Hindu family can by express or implied terms confer authority on a junior member to look after the affairs of the joint Hindu family or its business and to take all necessary steps for the smooth and beneficial management of the business and to protect the interest of such joint Hindu family business. The karta and the other members of the family are bound by the acts of such authorised junior member. In view of the matter, I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that only karta of the joint Hindu family can bring the suit. In my opinion, the suit can be brought by a junior member of the joint Hindu family duly authorised expressly or impliedly by karta and the other members of the family because the rights of the managing member to act for smooth and beneficial management and protection of the interest of such joint Hindu family business include the right to file suit for the recovery of the money due to the joint Hindu family firm. I do not see any flaw in arriving at this finding by the learned trial Judge. (14). I do not see any flaw in arriving at this finding by the learned trial Judge. (14). However,the matter does not rest here because such express or implied authority must be proved in the case by direct evidence or by inference on the basis of the facts and circumstances and evidence appearing on record. In the present case, it is not established that Hira Chand, who is not proved to be karta, is authorised to conduct the business of a joint Hindu family and as such to bring the suit to recover the outstanding. So far as plaintiff Hira Chand is concerned, he has not laid any foundation by pleading authority to him to look after the affairs of joint Hindu family firm. There is no evidence on record either by examining Mathura Lal his father or any other members of the family that he is the managing member of the family to carry on the joint Hindu family firm. There is no material or such facts and circumstances as to draw an inference that Hira Chand enjoys the power to conduct the business and to bind by his acts other members of the joint Hindu family. I have already dealt with the statement of plaintiff Hira Chand, which is very inconsistent and no where helps us to come to the business that he is authorised to conduct the business by karta or other members of the family. His statements are wholly unreliable because he has given different versions about the status of the firm whether the plaintiff firm is proprietorship or joint Hindu family firm. I have perused Ex. 84 and 85 but no view can be taken of inferential managerial power/authority of plaintiff Hira Chand. These documents Ex. 84 and 85 at the most show that Hira Chand attended the shops and Commercial Establishments Department and he has been shown only `occupier/employer. Ex.86 is the assessment statement of commercial tax for the year 1969/70 by office of Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer, Ward B, where in only the presence of Hira Chand has been recorded. I disagree with the learned trial Judge that inference can be drawn on the basis of above documents in favour of Hira Chand that he is clothed with the authority to conduct the business of the plaintiff firm as managing member by karta or other members of the family. I disagree with the learned trial Judge that inference can be drawn on the basis of above documents in favour of Hira Chand that he is clothed with the authority to conduct the business of the plaintiff firm as managing member by karta or other members of the family. It is also relevant to note that the bills were prepared by his father Mathura Lal. In view of the above discussion, I hold that neither it is proved that Hira Chand is the karta of the joint Hindu family nor it is proved that he possesses any authority express or implied on behalf the karta or the other members of the family to carry on the business so as to bind by his acts the members of the joint Hindu family. Therefore,the conclusion of implied managerial powers in favour of Hira Chand arrived at by the learned trial court is erroneous because it is not based on correct appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. The learned trial court has not taken into consideration the statements of the parties and particularly the statement of the plaintiff for which he clearly observed that it was self contradictory and even malafide. In the result, Issue No.5 is decided in favour of the appellants-defendants and against the plaintiff-respondents that the plaintiff Hira Chand is not entitled to bring the suit and as such it is liable to be dismissed. (15). Consequently, the appeal is hereby accepted. The impugned judgment and decree dated 15.9.1975 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ajmer is hereby set aside and the plaintiffs suit is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.