1. In my opinion the decree should have been against the second defendant for the whole amount of the debt to the extent of his share of the joint family property and any other assets being separate property of his father, which may be in his hands, but not against the shares of the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants against whom the suit is barred. I have not been shown that these shares are held by the 2nd defendant on their behalf in any capacity which would warrant a decree against him and, in the absence of the owners, for the seizure of their shares by the creditor.
2. On the other hand I am unable to accept the argument that each one is liable only for a portion of the debt proportioned to his share in the joint family property. I have not been referred to any authority restricting the creditor to a suit against all the sons for the whole, or if he sues one only, to a suit for a portion of his debt. The authority seems to be the other way.
3. I modify the decree by directing the 2nd defendant to pay the plaintiffs claim so far as his share of the joint family property will go to satisfy it. It is not alleged that his father left any separate property.
4. The appellant succeeds in part, and is in part successfully resisted. No costs will be awarded in this Court, except that the plaintiff must pay the 3rd and 4th defendant's costs.