1. The evidence is ample to show that the money was borrowed for the purpose of a trade which was an ancestral one and carried on under a direction in the father's Will. It was argued as a matter of law that the appellants would not be liable except to the extent of their shares in the assets of the business, and in support of that proposition a ruling of this Court in Sanka Krishnamurthi v. Bank of Burma 14 Ind. Cas. 389 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 385 was cited : but that case does not bear out the contention of the learned Pleader. It is clear from the judgment of the learned Chief Justice in that case that so far as the Hindu Law is concerned, which is the law governing the parties in this suit, he accepted the rulings in Ram lal Thakursidas v. Lakhmichand 1 B.H.C.R. App. 5 and Raghunathji Taraehand v. Bank of Bombay 11 Bom. L.R. 255, as correctly laying down the law on the subject. Those decisions held in clear terms that in the case of an ancestral business, all the members of the family including the minors are liable for debts incurred in the course of the business to the extent of their shares in the family property, and that seems to be only reasonable because a business like the one in question is carried on on the credit of the entire family property. The family property is swelled by the profits earned in the business and it would be not only unjust to confine liability to the extent of the share in the assets of the business but it would be impossible in a case of this nature to say what is the extent of the property embarked in the business. The learned Pleader for the appellant also relied on a decision in Chalamayya v. Varalayya 22 M.k 166. But all that was held there was that in cases of this class, the separate property of the minor would not be liable. The reasoning in that case on the other hand makes it clear that, in the opinion of the learned Judges the share of the minor in the whole of the family property would be liable.
2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.