Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This appeal, by the defendants, is from the judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, then stationed at Daltonganj, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for recovery of money based or, a hathchitha (Ext. 2) executed by one Motilal, on behalf and as Mukhtarkhas of defendant 2, appointed by her under Ext. 1.

2. Mr. Kailasb Roy, who appeared for the appellants, has attacked the findings of the trial Judge on several grounds, The points, which emerge from his argument, may be summarised as below :

1. That there was no necessity, no negotiation and no advance, and, therefore, Ext. 2, the hathchitha as well as Ext. 1, the special power of attorney, are both forged and the present suit has been falsely instituted at the instance of P.W. 7;

2. That the loan, even if advanced on the basis of Ext. 1 under Ext. 2 was illegal and, not binding on the defendants, because (a) It was borrowed on behalf of defendant 2, the certificated guardian of her then minor sons, defendants 3 and 4, without the sanction of the Court, which appointed her;

(b) Ext. 2 was executed not by defendant 2 herself, but on her behalf and as her Mokhtarkhas, by Motilal, but defendant