Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in both these appeals. The suit out of which Second Appeal No. 2229 arose was brought on a mortgage document executed in the plaintiffs favour by the defendants land 2 on the 13th February 1905. The 2nd defendant is the son of 1st defendant. The lower appellate Court finds (a) that the 2nd defendant was a minor when the 1st defendant induced him to join the 1st defendant in executing the mortgage document; (b) that the mortgaged property belonged solely to the son, the 2nd defendant, on the date of the mortgage deed in 1905 as it had been gifted away by the father, the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant under the registered gift-deed, Exhibit IV, dated 1892; and (c) that the money which formed the consideration for the mortgage Exhibit A was not borrowed for the benefit of the 2nd defendant.

2. On these findings the plaintiffs suit was dismissed with the 2nd defendants costs so far as it prayed for the sale of the mortgaged property though there was a personal decree passed against the 1st defendant.

3. The only contention argued in this second appeal is that the gift-deed, dated 1892 by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendan