Partnership and suretyship in joint Hindu families require proof of agreement; family connection alone creates no liability.

Partnership in a joint Hindu family setting depends on proof of agreement, express or implied, and cannot be presumed merely from family connection or coparcenary status. A member may join a firm personally or representatively, but liability of other family members requires evidence of consensus, agency, or adoption of the business by the family; on the facts discussed, defendants 3, 5 and 7 were not shown to be partners. A contract of guarantee likewise requires clear undertaking to answer for another's default; the documents relied on did not prove suretyship, so defendants 8 and 9 were not liable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the existence of a joint Hindu family or a family connection among some partners gave rise to a presumption that the other members of the family were also partners in the firm. (ii) Whether defendants 8 and 9 were liable as sureties on the basis of the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs.

Issue (i): Whether the existence of a joint Hindu family or a family connection among some partners gave rise to a presumption that the other members of the family were also partners in the firm.

Analysis: Partnership depends upon agreement, express or implied, and the statutory test is the existence of a contract to combine property, labour and skill and share profits. The presumption applicable to joint family property cannot be extended to create a partnership liability. A member of a joint family may enter into partnership in a personal or representative capacity, but that question must be determined from evidence. No presumption in law arises that other coparceners become partners merely because one member joins the firm with strangers, and liability cannot be fastened on them without proof of consensus, agency, or adoption of the business by the family.

Conclusion: The finding that defendants 3, 5 and 7 were not partners in the firm was upheld, and the contention for their liability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether defendants 8 and 9 were liable as sureties on the basis of the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs.

Analysis: A contract of guarantee requires an undertaking to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a third person on default. The letter and other document relied upon by the plaintiffs did not show any such undertaking by defendants 8 and 9, and no contractual assumption of suretyship was proved.

Conclusion: Defendants 8 and 9 were not proved to be sureties and were not liable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because no legal or evidentiary basis was shown to extend partnership liability to the remaining family members or to impose surety liability on defendants 8 and 9.

Ratio Decidendi: In a partnership dispute involving a joint Hindu family, no presumption arises that all coparceners are partners merely because one member joins a firm with strangers; partnership and suretyship must each be proved by evidence of agreement or equivalent contractual assent.

---