1. We see no reason to doubt the conclusion that the Subordinate Judge has come to that the 2nd defendant was a partner. Exhibit D in 1906 is a letter in which the 2nd defendant himself is expressly stated to be one of the owners of the firm. S.P. Subramaniam Chetty was his father's name and S.P. Sub-ramaniam Chetty mentioned in Exhibit-D is the 2nd defendant himself. This man is said in the body of the letter to be one of the proprietors whose signatures are to be taken, and admittedly the signature of the 2nd defendant was taken When signed by the 2nd defendant and the other two, Exhibit D became a letter of guarantee by the firm. This letter goes to show that the 2nd defendant was a partner then and also that the oral evidence that the 2nd defendant's father had died at the beginning of 1906 was correct. There is evidence that the 2nd defendant was a partner even during his father's life-time. Even if he only became a partner on his father's death, very little evidence is required to show that an incoming partner accepts liability for the past debts of the firm, as pointed out by Lindley on Partnership (Eigth Edition) page 252, and we think that, when a Hindu son, who is already liable for his father's debts under the Hindu Law, succeeds as partner in place of his father, a presumption arises that he intended to make himself liable for the previous debts of the firm. We agree, therefore, with the Subordinate Judge and dismiss the appeal with costs.