S.N. Modi, J.
1. This is a first appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Churu, in a suit for recovery of money.
2. The plaintiff-respondent Megharam filed a suit against the appellant Mohanlal and his younger brother Ramchander, respondent No. 2, for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- on the bass of a promissory note dated 18.7.66. It was alleged in the plaintiff that defendants Mohanlal and Ramchander are real brothers and they carried on business jointly in the name and style of Mohanlal Ramchander at Derasar. Defendant Ramehar oder on 18. 7. 66 took a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff on behalf of both the defendants and executed a promissory note and also a receipt which are on the record as Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 respectively. The two defendants Mohanlal and Ramchander filed separate written statements. Both of then denied that they lived jointly. Ramchander admitted having executed the pronote and the receipt but pleaded repayment Mohanlal denied his liability to the suit amount. It was also pleaded that the Court of Additional District Judae, Churu, had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as the defendents resided at Bikaner. It was also pleaded that the promissory note was not stamped with proper stamps. The learned Additional District Judge after framing proper issues & recording evidence of the parties, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit against both the defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant Mohanlal has preferred this appeal against plaintiff Megharam and impleaded his younger brother Ramchander as co-respondent.
3. It is argued on be half of the appellant that the whole of thp debt due under the promissory note was paid off by Mohanlal which is evidenced by the receipt Ex. A/1. The court below has held that the defendants have failed to prove that the receipt was executed by the plaintiff Megharam. learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged this finding. It may be pointed out that at the time of the execution of the receipt, Ramchader was not present there. Mohanlal DW 1 has, of course, stated that the receipt was signed by plaintiff Megharam in his presence but his evidence has been disbelieved by the court below. Another witness examined on behalf of the defendant is the hand-writing expert K. S. Puri DW 4. I have carefully examined his testimony and I find that the reasons given by him are not at all convincing, and much value cannot be attached 'o his opinion evidence that the signatures of Megharam on Ex. A-1 are, similar to his admitted signatures. This receipt was attested to by one Tolaram and Maheshkumar. It is surprising that although Tolaram was examined on behalf of the defendants but no question was put to him whether the receipt was signed by Megharam in his presence. The attesting witness Maheshkumar has not been produced in the witness box The plaintiff Megharam in his statement has categorically denied having signed the receipt Ex. A-1. I entirely agree with the finding of the lower court that the defendants have failed to prove that the receipt was executed by Megharam. That apart DW 2 Ramchander in his statement has produced cash book entry Ex. A 10 showing credit entry for Rs. 10,000/- in the name of plaintiff Megharam in the account books of the Firm Mohanlal Ramchander. Had this debt been the repayment of the debt it ought to have shown in the same account books on the debit side. DW 2 Ramchander has admitted that the repayments are not entered in the books of the Firm Mohan Lal Ramchander but in his own separate account books The account books in which the repayment entries exist are not account books which were regularly maintained in the regular course of business arid as such no importance can be attached to the debit entries shown in such books of account.
3. It is next contended that the pronote was signed by Ramchander who is younger to defendant Mohan Lal and therefore Mohan Lal cannot be held liable to pay the suit amount. This contention is too not well-founded. The plaintiff came with the case that both the defendants carried on business in the name and style of Mohan Lal Ramchander. This allegation was not specifically denied by the defendants in their respective written statements. DW 2 Ramchander admitted that he carried on business in the name of Mohan Lal Ramchander. He also admitted that he as well as Mohan Lal conducted the business of the said firm but added that he was the proprietor of the business whereas Mohan Lal was only a servant. It is difficult to believe that Mohan Lal who is elder brother of Ramchander worked as servant in the Firm Mohan Lal Ram Chander. Mohan Lal in his statement, however, did not corroborate the statement of Ram Chander that he was working as servant in the Firm Mohan Lal Ram Chander. He admitted that in the year 1964 a contract was taken in the name o Ram Chander Mohan Lal but added that he could not say upto what time the of work of the said contract continued. Ha admitted that in that contract he and Ram Chander were both partners. He further admitted that in the bank there was account in the name of Mohan Lal Ram Chander and it could be operated by both of them From all this evidence it can safely be concluded that Mohan Lal and Ram Chander jointly carried on business in the name of Messrs Mohan Lal Ram Chander. The conduct of Mohan Lal and Ram Chander clearly shows that both were managing the affairs of this joint business. Ram Chander took the loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff in the name of Mohan Lal Ram Chander. Again, it is admitted that Mohan Lal signed the cheque for Rs. 4111/- against repayment of debt under his own signatures. learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the lower court has wrongly invoked the principles of law of partnership in this case and to a joint Hindu family business the law of partnership does not apply. There is no doubt that the member of Hindu Undivided Family carrying on joint business are not partners and the principle of Partnership Act viz. that one partner is deemed to be the agent of the other cannot be applied to a joint family business. But even in such joint Hindu family business, it is permissible even by a junior member to manage the affairs of the business and there by bind down all the members of the family. The law has been elucidated by Mayne on Hindu Law and Usage, at pages 379 380 as follows:
Where several persons take an active part in the conduct of the business, they may well be regarded as managing members or persons entrusted with the conduct of the business and they can, not only bind each other but also other members of the family including minor coparceners.' The above principle was followed by this Court in Chunnilal v. Kalu AIR 1966 Raj 208.
4. In view of the above, the management of the joint Hindu family business in the present case was not only in the hands of the manager, namely, Mohan Lal, but also in the hands of Ram ChandeRule The act of Ram Chander in taking the loan from the plaintiff was certainly ratified by Mohan Lal who subsequently issued the cheque for the amount of Rs. 4111/- In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned trial court committed any error in holding Mohan Lal liable for the suit debt.
5 The learned Counsel for the appellant next contended that the stamps used on the pronote are not in accordance with the Rajasthan Stamp Rules.the stamps used on the pronote should have been superimposed with the word 'Rajasthan'or the letters 'R.S.' This roint was discussed in Dalpatsingh Narayan Singh v. Jiwanmal Jasraj and Ors. by Sarjoo Prasad, CJ It was held that 'although under the Rajasthan Stamp. Roles, the stamps used on the document should have the word 'Rajasthan' or the letters 'Raj' super imposed op them, the Explanation to Rule 3 says that the stamp of the Central Government or of the Government of any covenanting State shall be deemed to have been super imposed with the word 'Rajasthan' or with the letters 'Raj', when used op any such instrument Such stamps though not super imposed can be recognised for purposes of stump law.' There is thus no force in this contention.
6. The appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed with costs.