Abdur Rahim, J.

1. I entirely agree is the conclusion reached by my brother Krishnaswami Aiyar in the learned and instructive judgment which he is about to read. I have nothing to add. The decree of the Subordinate Judge will be set aside as regards the third defendant, and that of the District Munsif will be restored. There will be no coats.

Krishnaswami Ayyar, J.

2. This second appeal has been preferred against the decree of the Subordinate Judge disallowing the plaintiffs claim against the third defendants share in the mortgaged property. The mortgage was executed by the first defendant, the father, and the second defendant, the adult son, while the third defendant a minor was represented by the father, who also signed the document as his guardian. The money was borrowed for the marriage expenses of the second defendant. The defendants have been dealt with as Sudras in this case, and no question has been raised as regards the correctness of that view. It is contended that the Subordinate Judge is wrong in holding that the marriage expenses of the second defendant are not under the Hindu Law a justifiable necessity for the borrowing of money and the execution of the mortgage