Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

39. In this Court in the case of Shamrathi Singh v. Kishan Prasad (1907) I.L.R. 29 All. 311 it was ruled that the managing members of a joint Hindu family carrying on a joint family business are not entitled to maintain a suit in their own names against the debtors of the family without joining with themselves either as plaintiffs or defendants all the other members of the family. The decision in Pateshri Partap Narain Singh v. Rudra Narain Singh (1904) I.L.R. 26 All. 528 was distinguished.

40. Their Lordships of the Privy Council have reversed this decision in I.L.R, 33 All., 272, holding that there was no principle of law or custom applicable to such a case under which the managing members of a Hindu joint family entrusted with the management of the business could be held incompetent to enforce at law the ordinary business contracts they are entitled to make or discharge in their own names. The decision in Arunachala Pillai v. Vythialinga Mudaliyar (1882) I.L.R. 6 Mad. 27 was quoted with apparent approval, and the decision in Ramsebuk v. Ramlall Koondoo (1881) I.L.R. 6 Calc. 815 explained, as also was that in Alagappa Chetti v. Vellian Chetti (1894) I.L.R. 18 Mad. 33. In respect to the latter their Lordships expressed the opinion that the proposition there laid down to the effect that the manager cannot sue without joining all those interested with him, if literally construed, goes too far.

49. An exhaustive review of the case law in the other High Courts will be found in the recent case of Sheik Ibrahim, v. K.R. Rama Iyer (1911) 21 M.L.J. 508. It shows, I think, that there has not been any uniform course of decisions in those Courts.

50. The case of Kishan Prasad v. Ear Narain (1911) I.L.R. 33 A11. 272 has been regarded by some courts as deciding that a manager of a joint family can sue and be sued on behalf of the family. It seems to me that all that their Lordships of the Privy Council decided in that case was that managing members of a joint family entrusted with the management of a business are competent to enforce at law the ordinary business contracts which they are entitled to make or discharge in their names ; but the language used by their Lordships in more than one place in their judgment suggests that they were of opinion that, apart from the case of a family business, the managing member of a joint family suing as such is entitled to maintain a suit to establish a right belonging to the family without making other members of the family parties. Indeed, this seems to be a necessary conclusion from their decisions in such cases as that of Daulat Ram v. Mehr Chand (1887) I.L.R. 15 Calc. 70. On principle it would seem that the decision should be the same whether the question of the right of the manager to represent the family is raised in the suit brought by or against the manager, or in a subsequent suit brought by or against a member of the family not impleaded in the former suit to try the effect of the decision in the former suit as against him. The manager of a joint family represents the family in its dealings with outsiders in all the ordinary affairs of life, at all events where he is acting within the scope of his authority or for the benefit of the family, and there seems to be no reason why he should not represent the family in a suit, whether as plaintiff or defendant, unless there is some legislative enactment to the contrary. It has been held more than once that the rule of procedure which is now Order VII, Rule 4, applies to the case of a manager of joint family suing on behalf of the family. If those decisions are correct, the rule referred to shows that a manager can sue on behalf of a joint family.