Judgment : 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.715 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.48,920/- against the defendants 1 to 4 and the suit was decreed as against the defendants 3 and 4 to the extent of properties inherited by them from late C.R. Jaganathan and the suit was dismissed as against the defendants 1 and 2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit against the defendants 1 and 2, the present appeal is filed. 3. The case of the plaintiff as seen from the plaint is as follows:– 1st defendant is a Partnership Firm in which the 2nd defendant and his brother C.R. Jaganathan were partners. On 4.11.1982, C.R. Jaganathan, as a partner and on behalf of the Partnership Firm borrowed a sum of Rs.36,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The said Jaganathan died on 30.6.1983 leaving behind the defendants 3 and 4 as his Legal Representatives. As the amount was borrowed by the Partnership firm in which the 2nd defendant is a partner, he is also liable to pay the amount and therefore the suit was filed for recovery of the amount as against the defendants. 4. The 2nd defendant filed the statement stating that no promissory note was executed as alleged by the plaintiff. He further denied that he is a partner of the 1st defendant Firm. 5. The defendants 3 and 4 remained exparte. 6. On the basis of the pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues and are as follows: 1. Whether the suit promissory note was executed on behalf of the 1st defendant Firm ? 2. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the amount ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for ? 7. 6. On the basis of the pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues and are as follows: 1. Whether the suit promissory note was executed on behalf of the 1st defendant Firm ? 2. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the amount ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for ? 7. The trial Court tried Issues 1 and 2 and held that the plaintiff/ appellant failed to prove that the 2nd defendant was a partner in the Partnership Firm and the plaintiff also failed to prove that the deceased Jaganathan borrowed money for the Partnership Firm and he borrowed money for his personal use and therefore the suit promissory note will not bind the 2nd defendant and the defendants 3 and 4 are liable to pay the amount to the extent of any property inherited by them from the Estate of Jaganathan and answered the issues partly against the plaintiff and decreed the suit against the defendants 3 and 4. Against that the appeal is filed. 8. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. C. Chinnasamy appearing for the appellants submitted that admittedly Jaganathan and the 2nd defendant were members of the Hindu joint family and Jaganathan was the Karta and in the capacity of Karta he entered into the Partnership agreement with the 1st defendant and therefore any debt incurred by the Karta is binding on the other coparceners and even assuming that the 2nd defendant was not a partner, Jaganathan as a Karta of the family can enter into a partnership with strangers and if any debt is incurred by the Partnership Firm represented by Karta, the other coparceners are also liable to pay the same from the coparcenery property and that was not properly appreciated. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1956 Supreme Court, 374 (Firm Bhagat Ram Mohanlal Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax Nagpur and another) in support of his contention. 9. On the basis of the above submissions the following point arises for consideration in the Appeal is: Whether the deceased Jaganathan joined the Partnership Firm in the capacity of Karta of the joint Hindu family and therefore the debt is binding on the other coparceners namely the 2nd defendant ? 10. 9. On the basis of the above submissions the following point arises for consideration in the Appeal is: Whether the deceased Jaganathan joined the Partnership Firm in the capacity of Karta of the joint Hindu family and therefore the debt is binding on the other coparceners namely the 2nd defendant ? 10. It is seen from the plaint that 1st defendant is a Partnership Firm in which Jaganathan and the 2nd defendant were partners and Jaganathan as a Partner for himself and on behalf of the Firm borrowed a sum of Rs.36,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note on 4.11.1982. Therefore, it is not the case of the appellant/ plaintiff that Jaganathan entered into the partnership deed as Karata of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and the 2nd defendant. Further, the 2nd defendant specifically denied the allegation that he was the partner of the Firm. When the plaint proceeded on the basis that the Partnership Firm was the borrower in which the 2nd defendant was a partner along with his brother and when the 2nd defendant denied his status as a partner the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the 2nd defendant was a partner along with his brother C.R. Jaganathan and therefore he is also liable to pay the debt. Admittedly, no evidence was let in to prove that the 2nd defendant was a partner in the Firm. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the 2nd defendant cannot be held liable for the amount borrowed by Jaganathan and the defendants 3 and 4 as the Legal Representatives of the deceased Jaganathan are liable to pay the debt to the extent of property inherited by them from Jaganathan. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the trial Court and the point for consideration is answered against the appellants. 11. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1956 Supreme Court, 374 (Firm Bhagat Ram Mohanlal Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax Nagpur and another) and the said Judgement cannot be applied to the facts of the case. 11. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1956 Supreme Court, 374 (Firm Bhagat Ram Mohanlal Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax Nagpur and another) and the said Judgement cannot be applied to the facts of the case. In the reported Judgement, it has been held that when the karta of a joint Hindu family enters into a partnership with strangers, the members of the family do not 'ipso facto' become partners in that firm but the creditors of the firm would no doubt be entitled to proceed against the joint family assets including the shares of the non-partner coparceners for realisation of their debts. In this case, as stated supra, there is no pleading that C.R. Jaganathan as a Karta of the family entered into the partnership and incurred loan for the family and there is no evidence available to prove that the 2nd defendant was a partner. The pleading is also to that effect that the Partnership Firm borrowed the amount. Therefore, the above Judgment cannot apply to the facts of the case. 12. In the result, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court are confirmed and the Appeal is dismissed.