Curable plaint verification defect and karta-executed promissory note liability limited to the signatory and his estate.

A defective verification of a plaint under Order 6 Rule 15(2) CPC was treated as a curable irregularity, and amendment related back to the original filing date, so limitation was not defeated. On liability under a promissory note, a karta who executed the note in his own name bound only himself as the signatory; the other coparceners were not parties to the instrument and could not be made liable on the note merely because the borrowing was for family purposes. Liability against the joint family, if any, had to be pursued as an underlying family debt in a properly framed claim. Recovery was therefore confined to the signatory's estate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an initial defect in verification of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 15(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rendered the suit as barred by limitation. (ii) Whether a coparcener of a Hindu joint family was liable on a promissory note executed by the karta in his own name for family purposes so as to bind the other coparceners or the joint family property.

Issue (i): Whether an initial defect in verification of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 15(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rendered the suit as barred by limitation.

Analysis: A defective verification was treated as a mere irregularity. The defect could be cured by amendment, and the amended verification related back to the original presentation of the plaint. The suit was therefore taken to have been instituted on the original date of filing, not on the date of amendment.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and was decided against the defendant.

Issue (ii): Whether a coparcener of a Hindu joint family was liable on a promissory note executed by the karta in his own name for family purposes so as to bind the other coparceners or the joint family property.

Analysis: Liability under a negotiable instrument depends on the persons named as parties to it and on the apparent tenor of the document. Where the karta signs a promissory note unconditionally in his own name, the other coparceners are not parties to the instrument and cannot be made liable on the note itself merely because the loan was taken for family purposes. The Hindu law rule making family property liable for debts incurred for family necessity operates where the original debt is sued upon in an appropriately framed action, not where the claim is confined solely to the promissory note. The plaintiff, having chosen to sue only on the notes, could recover against the karta's estate through the heirs, but not against the other coparcener.

Conclusion: The other coparcener was not liable on the promissory notes and the suit against him failed, while the claim against the karta's heirs succeeded to the extent of the estate in their hands.

Final Conclusion: The plaint survived the limitation objection, but the plaintiff's remedy on the notes was confined to the signatory and his estate. Recovery against the non-signing coparcener was rejected, while relief was sustained against the heirs of the karta.

Ratio Decidendi: A promissory note executed by a karta in his own name for family purposes binds only the signatory on the instrument; family liability must be enforced, if at all, through a properly framed claim on the underlying family debt and not by treating the non-signing coparceners as makers of the negotiable instrument.

---