1. Two points are taken by the appellants. One is that no suit would lie on a pro-note against any one but the makers and that, therefore, the 3rd defendant as manager could not acknowledge a liability which he could not create. The second in that there had been a division by Exhibit I before the acknowledgment and so the acknowledgment was not by an authorised agent within the meaning of section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act. We express do opinion on the first point as we think the appellants are entitled to succeed on the second point. The decision of the Full Bench in Soundararajam v. Arunachalam Chetty 33 Ind. Cas. 858 (1916) M. W. N. 31 lays down that fullest effect must be given to the judgment of the Privy Council in Suraj Narain v. Iqbal Narain 18 Ind. Cas. 30 It is there laid down that a definite and unambiguous indication of intention to separate amounts to separation. Now Exhibit I is such a definite indication not by one bat by all, and the lower Appellate Court is in error in thinking that because there was no division by the arbitrators there was no separation. We are clear that the family was dissolved at the date of the acknowledgment. It is argued that because the 3rd defendant was allowed to manage the property he could acknowledge, but we are satisfied that there is no evidence on which he could be found to be an agent duly authorized on that behalf. It follows, therefore, that an acknowledgment by one co-contractor, as they were at that date, could not bind the others. (Vide section 21 of the Indian Limitation Act.) The respondent seeks to bind defendants Nos. 4 to 6, the minor sons of one brother, as their guardian but that brother did not sign the pro-note. So the guardian could not make them liable under section 21.
2. The suit will stand dismissed against defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and their shares in the family property with costs of the appellants to be paid by the 1st respondent.