Court allows appeal by family business managers, emphasizes right to sue for family without all coparceners.

The court set aside the Single Judge's decision, allowing the Plaintiffs' appeal to be heard on the grounds raised. It emphasized that the Plaintiffs, as managers of the joint family business, had the right to sue on behalf of the family without joining all coparceners. The court held that the Respondent's failure to file any appeal did not affect the validity of the suit, citing Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Non-joinder of other coparceners in a suit for redemption of pledged ornaments.
2. Whether managers of a joint family business can sue on behalf of the family without joining other coparceners.
3. Effect of Respondent not filing any appeal or cross-objections in the Court.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Non-joinder of other coparceners
The case involved a suit for redemption of pledged ornaments where the Plaintiffs, described as owners of a shop, were challenged by the Defendant for not including all coparceners in the joint family business. The trial court initially held that non-joinder of other family members was necessary but later passed a decree in favor of the Plaintiffs. The District Judge modified the decision, and the second appeal was heard by a Single Judge who held that the suit was not maintainable due to non-joinder of all major coparceners. The Single Judge did not consider other grounds raised by the Plaintiffs in the appeal.

Issue 2: Managers of joint family business suing on behalf of family
The Appellants argued that as managers of the joint family business, they had the right to sue on behalf of the family without joining other coparceners. The court agreed with this contention, stating that the Plaintiffs, being the managers of the business, could sue in their own names on behalf of the joint family business. The court found no requirement for all coparceners to join as Plaintiffs and considered the omission of joint family description in the plaint as a correctable mis-description.

Issue 3: Effect of Respondent not filing appeal or cross-objections
The Respondent did not file any cross-objections in the appeal. The court held that the Respondent, by not appealing, supported the decree in his favor, as per Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court referred to a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court to support this position and concluded that the Respondent's failure to file any appeal or cross-objections did not affect the maintainability of the suit.

In conclusion, the court set aside the Single Judge's decision, allowing the Plaintiffs' appeal to be heard on the grounds raised. The court emphasized that the Plaintiffs, as managers of the joint family business, had the right to sue on behalf of the family without joining all coparceners, and the Respondent's failure to file any appeal did not impact the validity of the suit.

---