JUDGMENT
1. This was a suit upon a mortgage. dated the 15th of March 1890, executed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. Three sons of the original mortgagee brought the suit. An adult and a minor member of the joint family were not made plaintiffs. The Court of first instance treated the suit by the plaintiffs as by the managers of a joint- Hindu family and gave them a decree. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court decided all the other points raised in the appeal in favour of the plaintiffs and came to the conclusion that the adult son and minor grand-son were necessary parties and that as they were not impleaded within the period of limitation, the defect was fatal to the suit. The son and the grandson in the lower Appellate Court filed an affidavit to the effect that the plaintiffs had instituted the suit in their capacity of the managers of the joint family. But the lower Appellate Court thought that that affidavit was too late. In second appeal, it is urged that the suit was instituted by the three plaintiffs as the managers of a joint Hindu family and that the case was covered by the recent Full Bench ruling of this Court in Madan Lal v. Kishen Singh 9 A.L.J. 844 : 15 Ind. Cas. 138. Though the plaintiffs did not state in so many words that they were suing in their capacity of managers, yet the tenor of the whole plaint leaves no doubt in our minds that they did sue in that capacity. In this view the omission of two members of the family from the plaint was not fatal to the suit. We, therefore set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Court of first instance with costs which in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.