The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of a mortgage on specific properties and the procedure for representing a person of unsound mind in a suit.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of a suit to enforce a mortgage dated 16th January, 1919 executed in favour of Chappalamadugu Govindayya by one, Yagnayya and his undivided son Ramamurti, and Hanumantha Rao for himself and as guardian of his sons Venkatanarasimham and Satyanarayana who are defendants 2 and 3 in this suit. All the members of the family of Hanumantha Rao are also impleaded as defendants herein besides Ramamurti, the son of Yagnayya. The said Ramamurti, Venkatanarasimham and Satyanarayana are impleaded as trustees of Seetaramaswami and Anjaneya temples on the ground that the father of the 1st defendant Yagnayya, and Hanumantha Rao the father of Venkatanarasimham and Satyanarayana were trustees of the said temples. The reason for the inclusion of these defendants in the capacity of trustees apart from their individual capacity is that items 19 and 20 of the plaint schedule property which are also comprised in the said deed of mortgage are properties dedicated to the said temples and vested in the trustees in trust for the temples. The validity and the binding nature of this mortgage on the minor defendants was the subject-matter of an issue in the partition suit (O.S. No. 63 of 1932) on the file of the Sub-Court, Bapatla, out of which Appeal No. 293 of 1937 arises. The evidence relating thereto has been elaborately discussed by the learned Subordinate Judge who came to the conclusion that the said mortgage was binding on all the members of the family including the minor plaintiffs in O.S. No. 63 of 1932. In that suit the properties mortgaged were described as items 1 to 26 of the B schedule to the plaint. In those properties the family of Hanumantha Rao was entitled to two-thirds and the other one-third belonged to Yagnayya. The case for Hanumantha Rao in the partition suit was that the said properties were his self-acquisitions whereas the case of the other members of the family was that they were purchased for the benefit of the family. Those properties originally belonged to one Venkatappayya who died leaving him surviving his widow Seetammaand his mother. On the death of his widow and mother, the succession opened and the reversioners who were entitled to the said properties were Yagnayya the father of Ramamurti and one Venkataramayya and another Sriramamurti each entitled to one third share. It appears that Venkataramayya became entitled to two-thirds subsequently. On 26th June, 1915, Hanumantha Rao purchased the two-third share of Venkataramayya under Ex. H. In regard to these properties the reversionary rights of Yagnayya and Venkataramayya were questioned by certain persons who filed O.S. No. 72 of 1910 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bapatla, which ended ultimately in favour of the said Yagnayya and Venkataramayya. Another suit was filed for recovery of these properties (O.S. No. 6 of 1919) and expenses had to be incurred in connection therewith. The suit mortgage was executed partly for the purpose of meeting those expenses, the debts incurred in connection therewith and also for discharging a debt incurred for averting a Court sale of items 19 and 20 in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 585 of 1910 obtained on a deed of mortgage executed by the original owner of the property. In both the suits (O.S. 63 of 1932 and in the present suit) the validity of the mortgage was dealt with on the footing that the said two-thirds acquired under Ex. H was joint family property and the case set up by Hanumantha Rao was negatived. The question whether the mortgage deed was true and supported by consideration and binding on the members of the family was also raised in this suit. The learned Judge adopted the finding arrived at in O.S. No. 63 of 1932 in this suit also. He however, came to the conclusion that the mortgage was not enforceable against items 19 and 20 on the ground that they were trust property and that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that they were comprised in the mort