Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 1896 of 1968. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 21st September	 1962	 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal (B) No. 287 of 1956). H. B. Data and P. C. Bhartari for the appellant. section T. Desai and Naunit Lal for respondents 3 & 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA	 J. This is a plaintiff 's appeal by special leave directed against a judgment of High Court of Mysore. The following pedigree table will be helpful in understanding the facts leading up to this appeal: Mahalingappa (died in 1922) Mallappa Appa Saheb Neelkanth Def. No. I Def. No. 2 (died on 8 7 46) Chandrakant Smt. Balabi Def. No. 3 (wife of Neelkanth Def. No.4). The respondents are Hindus governed by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law. Mahalingappa	 the prepositus of the joint family died in 1922	 survived by three sons	 namely	 Malappa	 Defendant 1	 Appa saheb	 Defendant 2	 and Neelkanth (The sons are hereafter referred to as `M '	`A ' and `N ')	 Mahalingappa and his sons constituted a joint Hindu family. The family was trading in tobacco. Mahalingappa	 J as Karta was managing the joint family business. After his death	 his eldest son. Neelkanth	 father of Chandrakant	 Defendant 3	 began to look after the management of the family business `N ' also started C. N. Tennis Bidi Factory in the name of his son	 Chandrakanth	 in 1942 or thereabout. `N ' died on July 8	 1946. Thereafter	 `A ' (Defendant 2) continued and managed the joint family business and the family concerns with the consent of the other members. After 1951	 the family business was managed by `M ' (Defendant 1). The appellant had business dealings in tobacco and money dealings with the Defendants ' joint family. There used to be periodical verification of accounts and acknowledgements were made from time to 289 time by the Manager of the family. The plaintiff 's accounts were burnt in fire on October 22	 1949 and he had to reconstruct the accounts from available information and ' documents. On April 15	 1953 accounts were taken	 and the amount due from the defendants family to the plaintiff was worked out and verified The accounts thus stated were acknowledged and signed by Defendant 1 and by Defendant 4	 as guardian of her minor son	 Defendant 3. A balance of Rs. 69	465/15/ was found due to the plaintiff from the defendants. With the preceding allegations	 the plaintiff on January 28	 1954 instituted the suit for the recovery of Rs. 75	000/ 	 comprising of Rs. 69	465/15/ 	 as principal	 plus interest at 12 per cent per annum Subsequently by an amendment of the plaint	 he added an alternative ground that if the Defendants proved that there had been a partition in the family	 they were still liable for the dues pertaining to the ancestral business carried on by all the defendants either as members of the joint Hindu family or as partners of a firm. Defendants 1 and 2 in their joint written statement admitted that there was an ancestral tobacco business of the family managed by 'N ' till his death in 1946; that after N 's death	 the family business was managed by them (M & A) and that all the defendants were jointly liable for the plaintiff 's claim. The defendants denied that there was ever a partition of the joint family. They however conceded that a deed of partnership	 an agreement and a partition award had been brought into existence from time to time with the sole object of lessening the burden of income tax	 and they were not intended to be acted upon. It was added that after the interim attachment of the property	 Defendant 3	 taking advantage of these bogus documents	 obtained an ex parte decree to show that there had been division of the joint family	 and that this decree was not opposed by the answering defendants because they were assured that it would not be executed. They admitted that the appellant 's claim was partially true	 but denied correctness of the total balance claimed as due. They further averred that the suit was time barred as the acknowledgement relied on by the plaintiff was not legal and could not extend limitation	 that interest was wrongly calculated; that	 if they ( Defendant 1 and 2) were held liable	 they should be allowed to pay in easy instalments. Defendant 3 filed a separate written statement. He resisted the plaintiff 's claim	 traversed the allegations in the plaint	 and denied that there was any acknowledgment made on his behalf on April 15	 1953 by his mother	 Defendant 4. In the alternative he pleaded that she had no authority to acknowledge the debt so as to bind him as he was then a minor. Defendant 3 further stated that there was a disruption of the joint family status on November 4	 1945 when M	 A and N unequivocally expressed their intention to separate	 and divided the movables	 and thereafter	 a decree for partition of the immovable property of the family was passed in 1949 on the basis of an arbitration award. Defendant 3 asserted that this decree had been acted upon by the parties. He denied that Defendants 1 and 2 had ever acted manager of the joint family with the consent of the other members	 290 and added that this question could not arise because of the earlier division of the family. Defendant 4 in her written statement denied the plaintiffs ' claim and supported the contentions raised in his written statement by Defendant 3. She stated that Defendants 1 and 2	 had taken her thumb impressions on certain papers on the representation that they had been properly managing the Tennis Bidi Factory which had fallen to the share of her husband. She was never informed of the contents of the documents by the Defendants	 who took undue advantage of her illiteracy. The trial court held that the joint family had disrupted in 1945 and the plaintiff was aware of this fact; that the acknowledgements of the debt had been made by Defendants 1 and 2 and not by Defendant 3	 and on that account the suit was within time only as against Defendants 1 and 2; that Defendant 3 had on attaining majority repudiated his liability as partner; that the thumb impressions of Defendant 4 on the acknowledgement had been taken by practising fraud; that in any case defendant 4 had no authority to acknowledge the debt on behalf of her minor son. The Court	 however	 upheld the appellant 's contention that the old accounts had been destroyed in fire and that the plaintiff was entitled to interest at 12 per cent per annum. on these findings	 the trial court decreed the plaintiff 's claim in toto against Defendants 1 and 2 but dismissed it against Defendants 3 and 4. Against that judgment and decree of the trial court	 the plaintiff preferred an! appeal to the High Court. The High Court has affirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 did not appeal against the decree of the trial court which had consequently become final against them. It is common ground between the parties that during the life time of Mahalingappa	 the family consisting of Mahalingappa and his sons	 was a joint Hindu family trading in tobacco. It is further not disputed that after the death of Mahalingappa	 the surviving co parceners continued to be joint and Neelkanth	 the eldest son of Mahalingappa	 managed the family business as Karta till November 4	 1945. The first matter in controversy is	 whether on November 4	 1945	 on account of an unequivocal declaration of an intention to separate made by the three sons of Mahalingappa	 there was a disruption of the joint family status ? The courts below have concurrently answered this question in the affirmative. Mr. Datar	 appearing for the appellant contends that this finding of the courts below that there was a division in the family on November 4	 1945	 was not based on any evidence whatever and is consequently	 unsustainable in law. 291 We are unable to accept this contention. The finding is based on good evidence which has been found credit worthy after due consideration by the two courts. Firstly	 there is a recital of the fact of division on November 4	 1945	 in the partnership deed	 exhibit 197	 dated October 25	 1946. This deed has been written on a general stamp paper of the value of Rs. 30. The date of the purchase of the stamp paper accords with the date of the execution of the deed. This document therefore	 could not have been brought into existence subsequently. Secondly	 there was an endorsement on the Income tax Return exhibit 309	 relating to the previous year ending on November 4	 1945	 that at the end of the year there has been a change in the status of the family. Thirdly	 there is the Arbitration Award (exhibit 294) dated November 3	 1948	 followed by the decree (exhibit 295). This award is a registered document. The material recitals in this document are as under: "The plaintiff (Chandrakant Nilkanth) and the defendants Nos. 1	 2 and 3 (Mallappa	 Appasaheb and Basawabai	 widow of Mahalingappa) were members of joint family. During the lifetime of the plaintiff 's father	 he and the defendants Nos. 1	 2 and 3 were living joint and all the three persons carried on the business of the joint family. Thereafter as the minds of the plaintiff 's father and of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were prejudiced on account of some domestic reasons	 they began to live separately in the year 1945. Thereafter they took accounts of the transactions	 with desire to get their immovable and movable properties and other business partitioned and got the capital amount in that business partitioned on 4th November 1945. So also they effected partitions in the other movables and the ornaments etc. 	 of the family Now the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are objecting about the maintenance to be given to the defendant No. 3 (widow of Mahalingappa) as per agreement deed The contentions of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are as follows: We and our deceased eldest brother Sri Nilkanthappa were living joint. It is true that on 4th November 1945 we all three together have taken the accounts of the business and have made divisions in the capital of the business. It is true that accordingly we have proportionately divided the remaining movable articles and the ornaments etc. and have taken the same. " The award bears the signatures of the three arbitrators	 and on its basis the court passed a decree on August 9	 1949. That suit was instituted by Chandrakant	 and Basawwa	 widow of Mahalingappa	 Suryakant	 an illegitimate son of Nilkanth	 Mallappa Mahalingappa Sadalge and Appasaheb were impleaded as defendants. Under the award	 provision was made for the maintenance of Smt. Basawwa and the residence of Suryakant	 the illegitimate son of Nilkanth. 292 The conclusion based on the above documentary evidence was reinforced by the courts below with admissions made by Defendants 1 and 2	 in cross examination	 and also with an inference drawn against the plaintiff and Defendant 1 on account of the non production of the account books. In our opinion	 the court below were justified in drawing the inference because Defendant 1	 as is apparent from his written statement	 is colluding with the plaintiff	 and all circumstances suggest that these account books must be with defendant 1. The case of Defendant 3 is that on November 4	 1945	 the accounts of the joint family were worked out and closed. It was found that there was a capital balance of Rs. 64	023/11/ which was equally divided among the three brothers and the fact of this division was noted in the account books which were in the possession of Defendant 1. In the witness box	 Defendants 1 and 2 admitted that on November 11	 1945	 each of the brothers got Rs. 21	340/3/9 and credit entries to that effect were made in the khata of each brother in the account books of the shop. Defendant 3 by an application (exhibit 169) called upon Defendant 1 to produce in court the account books	 in his possession. Notice of this application was received by Defendant 's Counsel on July 18	 1955. Despite this notice defendant 1 did not produce the account books when he appeared in the witness box on July 21	 1955. He made a lame excuse that the account books had been given to Javali pleader after the service of summons in this suit on him (defendant 1) because that pleader had asked him to bring the books containing the plaintiff 's accounts. But the defendant gave him the books of the Bidi Factory and not of M. B. Sadalge shop. Defendant 1	 in cross examination	 clearly admitted that he had given to Javali pleader only those account books which contained the plaintiff 's Khata "and not of previous years". By any reckoning	 this means that he did not hand over the account books relating prior to the years 1949 to Javali Pleader. Admittedly	 after the death of Nilkanth. he was managing the business upto 1950	 and	 as such	 was supposed to be in possession of the account books. The courts below were there fore	 right in rejecting the explanation given by him for non production of the account books. The explanation regarding the non production of the books	 given by defendant 2	 who had managed the business after 1951	 was equally unsatisfactory and was rightly discarded. In the light of what has been said above	 it cannot be held that there was no legal evidence before the courts below to base the finding that the joint family had disrupted on November 4	 1945. It is next contended by Mr. Datar that even if there was some declaration of separation in 1945 and subsequently a decree for partition based on an award was passed in 1949	 then also	 such declaration	 award and decree were never acted upon. It is submitted that in holding to the contrary	 the High Court has committed several errors of record and misconstrued important documentary evidence. 293 According to Mr. Datar	 the under mentioned documentary evidence unmistakably shows that the declaration of 1945	 the award of 1948 and the partition decree of 1949 were not acted upon: (1). Affidavits Exhts. 221	 247 and 248 sworn on July 20	 1946	 before a Magistrate by Defendants 2	 4 and 1 stating that they are members of a joint Hindu family and Defendant 2 is the manager of the family. In the affidavit exhibit 247	 Smt. Balabai gave her consent to the management of the affairs of the joint family by defendant 2. Application dated August 13	 1946 (exhibit 182)	 by Defendant 1 to Sales tax officer for transfer and registration of the licence	 and application exhibit 208	 dated September 30	 1946 made by defendants 1 and 2 on their behalf and on behalf of Chandrakant Defendant 3 informing the City Surveyor about the death of Neelkanth and requesting him to enter the Khata in the names of all the three defendants 1 to 3. (3) Income tax returns Exhs. 309 to 314 filed after the death of Neelkanth. Resolution	 exhibit 335	 passed by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on July 30	 1946 permitting defendant 2 to redeem	 in the capacity of Karta of the joint family	 goods pledged with the Nipani Branch of the Bank by Neelkanth deceased. exhibit 147	 statement	 dated September 26	 1953	 by defendant 3 requesting the City Surveyor	 Nipani that his joint share in Nipani Revision Survey Nos. 1254 and 1264 may be cancelled and the name of defendant 1 may be entered again for both the numbers. Emphasis is on a sentence in this statement to the effect: "Two months have passed since the said partition". In accordance with this statement. the mutation exhibit 263	 was attested. Both the courts below have fully considered this evidence	 along with other evidence	 and come to the conclusion that these documents do not discount or alter the fact that the joint family had disrupted on November 4	 1945. The High Court has given reasons why the evidence furnished by the deed of partnership (exhibit 197) and the Arbitration Award	 (exhibit 294) can be safely accepted. ' In regard to Exs. 221	 247 and 248	 the High Court has said that there is no evidence as to for what purpose these affidavits were sworn to and has rightly emphasised that in the absence of such evidence	 it is difficult to draw any inference about the implications of their contents. Regarding the affidavit exhibit 247	 purporting to have been sworn by Smt. Balabai	 the High Court has said that she must have been mentally depressed being in mourning on account of the death of her husband which occurred only 12 days earlier; that she was an illiterate woman who thumb marked whatever documents were presented to her	 without understanding its contents. In this connection	 the High Court referred to the statement of defendant 1	 wherein he has admitted that during defendant 3 's minority	 defendant 1 and defendant 2 were the only persons who looked after the business and defendant 4 never objected to whatever they did. and that they used 294 to take defendant 4 's thumb impression whenever they thought it necessary in connection with the dealings of M. B. Sadalge shop. As regards the applications Exs. 182 and 208	 the High Court said	 there was nothing inconsistent in the recitals of these documents	 to show that there was no partition of the joint family. The recital in exhibit 208 was found to be too technical to spell out the full legal implications of the words "in the joint family". Referring to the Income tax returns Exs. 310	 311 and 314	 submitted on March 15	 1948	 November 12	 1949 and February 13	 1954	 respectively	 the High Court noted that these refer to the accounts of the two concerns and contain somewhat different description in the management. In exhibit 310	 relating to the year ending October 24	 1946	 it is stated that N ' and defendants 1 and 2 were Kartas of the family. In exhibit 311	 defendant 2 is mentioned as the manager of the "old Hindu Undivided Family". Similarly	 exhibit 314	 purports to have been filed by the H.U.F. relating to the year 1949 50 but this was filed on Feb. 13	 1954 after the institution of this suit. The income tax returns exhibit 312 and 313 relate to the previous years ending on 12 11 1947 and 22 12 48. exhibit 312 was submitted on December 26	 1949 and exhibit 313 on December 22	 1953	 both by defendant 2. The status of the assessee in these two returns is mentioned as "Firm". exhibit 315	 is the income tax return relating to the income tax year 1948 49	 the previous year of which ended on November 12	 1947. It was filed by defendant 4 as guardian of her minor son	 defendant 3	 on December 22	 1949. The status of the assessee therein is shown as `Individual '. It relates to the business which was being run under the style of M/s. M. B. Sadalge. It is mentioned in this return that each of the three defendants .1	 2 and 3 has 1/3 share in the business exhibit 316 is the order of the Income tax officer passed on June 20 1950 wherein it is stated that 1/3 share of defendant 1 in the profits of this firm was assessed on that date. exhibit 309 is the income tax return relating to the previous year ended on November 4	 1945. It was filed by defendant 2 in 1946	 after Neelkanth 's death. The High Court has attached great weight to an endorsement on this return	 which is to the effect	 that there had been a change in the family status. at the end of the year. This endorsement has been omitted from the printed copy of exhibit 309. Consequently	 at one stage	 it was maintained by the counsel for the appellant that in repeatedly referring to this endorsement the High Court had committed an error of record. We therefore	 sent for the original. We find that this endorsement is very much there in the original. This endorsement was a valuable piece of evidence to show that	 in fact	 there had been a disruption of the joint family status at the end of the previous year	 1944 45	 on November 4	 1945. Thus the evidence furnished by the income tax returns was conflicting. But the aforesaid endorsement on exhibit 309 was a clincher. It was a statement made ante litem motam. It confirmed the testing of 295 Defendant 2 that the partition had taken place in 1945 and this tilted the balance against the contention of the plaintiff. In such evidentiary value	 it out weighs the income tax returns	 exhibit 310	 311 and 314	 in which the status of the assessee is shown as H.U.F. The High Court was therefore	 not wrong in holding that all these documents taken together do not show "that the family of the defendants had continued to be joint. " Discussing the resolution (exhibit 335)of the Board of Directors passed on July 30	 1946	 the High Court said that this resolution was passed only 22 days after the death of Neelkanth and therefore	 there was nothing unusual if all the members authorised defendant 2 to redeem the pledged goods as manager of the joint family. In our opinion	 it was not ' unreasonable to hold that the recital in this resolution with regard to defendant 2 being the authorised manager of the joint family	 was made as a matter of expediency	 and did not discount the case of defendant 4 that the joint family had disrupted on November 4	 1945. The High Court found that the racital in exhibit 143	 that the partition had taken place two months prior to this application	 was obviously a mistake	 as it was nobody 's case that the partition had taken place in 1953. This inference also was not implausible. This document contains other palpable errors of a similar nature. For instance	 therein the age of defendant 3 is mentioned as twenty years	 while he was hardly eighteen. The High Court found that the documentary evidence furnished by the partnership deed (exhibit 197) dated October 25	 1946	 the award (exhibit 294) dated October 30	 1948	 and the decree (exhibit 295) dated September 15	 1949	 passed on its basis was entirely reliable. It further found that these documents had been acted upon. In this connection	 the High Court	 'rightly relied upon the admissions of defendant 1 in cross examination. In the witness box	 defendant 1 had conceded that all the immovable property that had been allotted to defendant 2 under the award had been sold away by him	 and that pursuant to the award	 Rs. 7	000/ had been paid to Heerabai and her son	 Suryakant. Defendant 1 further significantly admitted that on October 25	 1946 Rs. 16000/ and odd were to the credit of defendant 3 in the account books of M. section Sadalge Shop. By virtue of the receipt	 exhibit 167	 dated August 9	 1949	 defendants 1 and 2 acknowledged the deposit of Rs. 16005 15 0 in favour of the minor Defendant 3	 payable with interest at Rs. 6/ per cent per annum. Defendant 1 admitted the correctness of the contents of this receipt. It is undisputed that subsequently	 defendant 3 has not only obtained a decree on the basis of this receipt against defendant 1	 but has taken out its execution. The High Court has also dismissed the effect of the agreement (exhibit 99) which was executed between defendants 1	 2 and defendant 4 as the guardian of the minor	 defendant 3 on April 12	 1950. The main object of this agreement was to safeguard the interests of the minor in the management of the two partnership businesses	 namely	 296 M. B. Sadalge Shop and Tennis Bidi Factory in the name of Chandrakant Neelkant Sadalge. By this agreement	 defendants 1 and 2 were called upon to credit to the business whatever amounts they had spent from out of the partnership assets. The power of each of the defendants with regard to withdrawal of funds from partnership chest for personal expenses	 was also restricted. This arrangement continued to be in force till the partnership was dissolved by another registered deed on April 20	 1951. Reference has already been made to exhibit 316	 an order dated June 20	 1950	 of the Income tax officer showing that defendants 1	 2 and 3 were being assessed on the basis that each of them had 1/3rd share in the business. In a joint Hindu family business	 no member of the family can say that he is the owner of one half	 one third or one fourth. The essence of joint Hindu family property is unity of owner ship and community of interest	 and the shares of the members are not defined. Similarly	 the pattern of the accounts of a joint Hindu family business maintained by the Karta is different from those of a partnership. In the case of the former the shares of the individual members in the profits and losses are not worked out	 while they have to be worked out in the case of partnership accounts. In view of all that has been said above	 we are of opinion that the concurrent finding of the courts below to the effect	 that the joint Hindu family of the defendants had disrupted on November 4	 1945	 does not suffer from any legal infirmity or gross error which would justify our interference in this appeal by special leave. We therefore	 take it that no joint Hindu family of the defendants	 nor any joint business of such a family was in existence either on October 15	 1949 when the last dealing (vide exhibit 394) of the plaintiff with defendants 1 and 2 took place	 or when on April 15	 1953 the accounts were stated and admitted. Indeed	 on the date	 April 15	 1953	 on which the plaintiff 's cause of action arose	 even the partnership was not in existence	 the same having stood dissolved since April 20	 1951. Mr. Datar next contends that even if the joint status of the family stood disrupted from November	 1945	 then also	 on the principle of section 45	 Partnership Act	 the acknowledgements made by defendants 1 and 2	 representing themselves	 jointly or severally	 as Karta of the joint Hindu trading family	 would	 in the absence of public notice to the traders in general or particular notice to the plaintiff	 be binding of all the erstwhile members of the joint family. Reliance for this contention has been placed on a Single Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Kashiram Bhagshet Shete vs Bhaga Bhanshet Redij(1). As against this	 Mr. Desai submits that Kashiram 's case (supra) does not lay down the law correctly. Counsel maintains that the contrary view taken by the other High Courts in these cases is sound : Pramod Kumar Pati vs Damodar Sahu(2); Rengaswami Ayyanagar vs (1) A.I.R. 1945 Bom. 511 (2) I.L. R. 1953 Cuttack 221. 297 Sivyurakasam Pillai(1); Muthyala Ramachandrappa vs Muthyala Narayanappa (2) . Kashiram 's case (supra) decided by an eminent single Judge certainly supports the proposition propounded by Mr. Datar. Applying the principle of section 45 of the Partnership Act	 1932	 the learned Judge held that unless intimation of the severance of joint status between the members of the joint family is given to the outside creditors who had dealings with the joint family through its karta	 either by public notice or individual notice in that behalf	 the karta would be deemed to continue to represent the family and to have power to incur debts for family necessity and to make acknowledgements or part payments in `s respect of the same so as to extend the period of limitation. With great respect to the learned Judge	 we do not think that this is a correct enunciation of the law on the point. Firstly	 the legislature has	 in its wisdom	 excluded joint Hindu trading families from the operation of the Partnership Act. Section 4 of that Act defines 'partnership ' as "the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all". Section 5 further makes it clear that this Act governs only that relation of partnership which arises from contract and not from J status such as the one obtaining among the members of a joint Hindu family trading partnership. Secondly	 the question whether an acknowledgement made by the karta of an erstwhile joint Hindu family after its severance	 would extend limitation against all the former members of that family	 turns primarily on an interpretation of clause (b) of sub section (3) of s 21 read with section 19 of the Limitation Act	 1908. Clause (b) of section 21 (3) provides: "Where a liability has been incurred by or on behalf of a Hindu undivided family as such	 an acknowledgement or payment made by or by the duly authorised agent of	 the manager of the family for the time being	 shall be deemed to have been made on behalf of the whole family". The key words in this clause are the manager of the family for the time being '. These words unerringly indicate that at the time when the acknowledgement is made and signed	 the person making and signing it	 must be the manager of a subsisting joint Hindu family. If at the relevant time the joint Hindu family as such was no longer in existence because of division	 or disruption of its joint status	 any acknowledgement made by the erstwhile karta of such family cannot keep the debt alive and extend limitation as against all the members of the family	 his representative capacity as karta being co terminus with the joint status of the family. Explanation (II) to section 19 lays down that for the purpose of this section "signed" means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf. Section 21(1) provides that the expression "agent duly authorised in this behalf" in sections 19 and 20 shall in the case of a person under disability include his lawful guardian or manager or an agent duly authorised in this behalf. It is well settled that (1) I.L.R. 1942Mad. 251 (F.B.) (2) A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 298 coparceners do not derive their title through the karta of the coparcenary. Defendants 1 and 2 do not fulfil the requirements of this sub section. It is therefore the duty of the creditor to ascertain after due enquiry whether the person making the acknowledgement still holds his representative capacity as karta of the family. The law does not cast any duty upon the members of the family who do not figure in the endorsement or writing admitting the debt to inform the creditor by a general notice about the disruption of the family. If the creditor fails to make an enquiry and satisfy himself ' about the capacity of the executant to represent the family at the time of making the acknowledgement	 he does so at his own peril. Disruption of the joint family status	 as already noticed	 puts an end to the representative capacity of the karta and any acknowledgement of a debt made by him after such disruption cannot save the creditors ' claim from becoming time barred against the other members. The above enunciation of the law is in accord with the view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Rangaswamy Ayyangar vs Sivprakasam Pillai (supra) and by a Division Bench consisting of Varadachariar and Abdur Rahman JJ. in Muthyala Ramachandrappa vs Muthyala Narayanappa (supra)	 and by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Pramod Kumar Pati vs Damodar Sahu (supra). We approve of the law enunciated on the point by the High Courts in these cases. No other point has been argued before us in this appeal which fails and is dismissed with costs. P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.

The plaintiff appellant had business dealings with the joint family of the defendants. He had instituted a suit claiming a certain sum of money from the defendants	 one of the grounds being that even if the defendants proved that there had been a partition in the family	 the family was still liable for the dues pertaining to the ancestral business carried on by all the defendants either as members of the joint Hindu family or as partners of a firm. Defendant 3 (respondent) stated that there was disruption of the joint family status on November 4	 1945. when defendants 1 and 2 and his deceased father unequivocally expressed their intention to separate and divided their movables. He denied that defendants 1 and 2 had ever acted as managers of the joint family. The trial Court and the High Court concurrently found that the joint family of the defendants had disrupted on November 4	 1945 and that no joint family business was in existence on the date when the last dealing of the plaintiff with the defendants took place. On appeal to this Court	 it was contended that even if the joint family stood disrupted from November	 1945	 in the absence of public notice by defendants 1 and 2 regarding the disruption of the joint family	 the acknowledgements made by them as karta of the joint Hindu family would be binding on the erstwhile joint family under section 45 of the Partnership Act	 1932. Dismissing the appeal	 ^ HELD: (1) It is the duty of the creditor to ascertain whether the person making the acknowledgement still holds his representative capacity as karta of the family. The law does not cast any duty upon the members of the family to inform the creditors by a general notice about the disruption of the family. If the creditor fails to make an enquiry and satisfy himself about the capacity of the executant to represent the family at the time of making the acknowledgement	 he does so at his own peril. Disruption of the joint family status puts an end to the representative capacity of the karta and any acknowledgement of a debt made by him after such disruption cannot save the creditor 's claim from becoming time barred against the other members. [298B C] Pramod Kumar Pati vs Damodar Sahu	 ILR 1953 Cuttack 221; Rengaswami Ayyangar vs Sivprakasem Pillai	 ILR ; Mutayala Ramachandrappa vs Mutayala Narayanappa	 AIR 1940 Mad. 339	 approved. Kashiram Bhagshet Shete vs Bhaga Bhanshet Redij A.I.R. over ruled. (2)(a) The Legislature has excluded the joint Hindu trading families from the operation of the Partnership Act. Section 4 defines partnership as a relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business	 and according to section 5 the Act governs only that relation of partnership which arises from contract and not from status such as the one obtaining among the members of a joint Hindu family ' trading partnership	 [297C D] 288 (b) The words "manager of a family for the time being" occurring in section 21(3)(b) of the Limitation Act. indicate that at the time when the acknowledgement was made and signed	 the person making and signing it	 must be the manager of a subsisting joint Hindu family. If at the relevant time the joint Hindu family	 as such	 was no longer in existence	 any acknowledgement made by the erstwhile karta of such family cannot keep the debt alive and extend limitation as against all the members of the family	 his representative capacity as karta being co terminus with the joint status of the family. [297F G] (c) Coparceners do not derive their title through the karta of the coparcenaty. In the instant case defendants 1 and 2 did not fulfil the requirements of sub section (1) of section 21 of the Limitation Act. [298A]