JUDGMENT

Mitter, J. - The main questions which the lower Courts had to determine in this case were, firstly, whether there was any legal necessity to justify the guardian of the plaintiff's vendor in mortgaging the disputed property to the defendants; and secondly, whether the plaintiff's vendor, Chundernath, after arriving at majority, had, previous to the sale to the plaintiff, ratified the said transaction of mortgage. With reference to the first question, the lower Appellate Court has found as a fact upon evidence that the case of necessity set up by the defendants, special respondents, in their written statement, was not proved to its satisfaction. This finding has been impugned by the special respondents under the provisions of s. 848, Act VIII of 1859. But as it is a finding of fact based upon a full consideration of the evidence on the record, and as we do not find any error in law, either in the procedure or in the investigation of the case, we cannot interfere with it in special appeal.

2. Upon the second question, the lower Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff's vendor, having failed to take any steps to repudiate the defendants' title under the mo