A power of attorney authorizing an agent to grant mortgages on joint family land is sufficient to bind the joint family for the repayment of antecedent debts, provided the debts are proven to be liabilities of the joint family.

The plaintiffs (respondents) who carry on the business of cloth merchants and money-lending at Gaya, brought the action against the defendants to enforce three mortgage bonds dated the 11th April 1911, the 13th July 1912, and the 5th November 1914, respectively. The plaintiffs claimed a decree for the payment of the principal and interest due under the bonds in suit, and in default of payment thereof for the sale of the mortgaged properties belonging to the defendants, who are members of a joint and undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law. The Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, are brothers, and it appears that on the 7th January 1899, Dwarka Nath Singh, Defendant No. 1, and Kishun Prasad Singh, Defendant No. 3, executed a power of attorney in favour of Brijnath Singh, Defendant No. 2, which provided as follows :

If in any civil or criminal Court subordinate to the Calcutta High Court it be necessary for us, the executants, to appear personally and to make defence there the said Am Mokhtar himself shall appear and make defence in the cases on behalf of us, the executants, and in case of necessity shall depose on seolmn affirmation or in respect of any mauza or share of land owned and possessed by us, the executants, the said Mokhtar-Am shall grant simple or Zarpeshgi-Thika or make mortgage with possession, or in times of necessity after borrowing up to Rs. 4,000 from anyone for expenses of cases, purchase of Milkiat and Mokarrari payment of public demands and other necessary and incumbent work relating to us, the executants, the Mokhtar-Am may execute mortgage deeds jointly with himself or in case of necessity may make our signatures upon the aforesaid bonds.

In April 1911, the sum of Rs. 2,837-12-0 was found due from the Defendants 1 to 3 to the plaintiffs after settlement of the account (Bahi Khata) and on the 11th April 1911, the said Brijnath Singh (Defendant No. 2), acting under the said power of attorney, executed a deed of mortgage purporting to be for himself and on behalf of his brothers Nos. 1 and 3, in favour of the plaintiffs, and hypothecated certain joint family properties. It was for the sum of Rs. 3,300, which was made up of two items, viz., alleged antecedent debts due from the said defendants amounting to Rs. 2,837-12-0 and cash lent to Defendant No. 2 at the time of the execution of the mortgage, Rs. 462-4-0. The said Defendant No. 2 similarly executed a second mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs on the 13th July 1912, for Rs. 1,400, which was made up of three items alleged antecedent debts due from the Defendants 1 to 3 - Rs. 505-13-0, Rs. 620 borrowed by Defendant No. 2 in order to discharge a decretal debt due from the defendants to Promotho Nath Mitter, and cash lent to the Defendant No. 2 at the time of the execution of the bond, amounting to the sum of Rs. 274-3-0. The third mortgage bond was similarly executed by the Defendant No. 2 on the 5th November 1914, in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 2,000, which consisted of two items viz., alleged antecedent debt due from the same defendants, Rs. 1,173-4-3, and cash lent to Defendant No. 2 for defraying the necessary household expenses at the time of the execution of the bond, Rs. 826-11-9.

The Defendant No. 2, who signed and executed the mortgage bonds sued upon, did not appear or contest the plaintiffs' claim, but the other contesting defendants, who are now the appellants, denied the genuineness and validity of the power of attorney or that the Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 had power to execute it, and also pleaded that the said mortgage bonds were 'beyond the authority vested in the Moktarnama - Defendant No. 2. They Mokhtar Am also alleged that the necessities indicated in said mortgage bonds were wrong and false.

The action was tried in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya, who after hearing the evidence gave judgment on the 23rd March 1920. On the question of the genuineness and validity of the mortgage bonds and the passing of th