Jackson, J.

1. The plaintiff sued on a mortgage and obtained a decree for sale against first defendant and his minor son second defendant. The second defendant then brought O. S. No. 50 of 1920 in the Court of the District Munsif of Madura Taluk pleading that the mortgage debt was for improper purposes and therefore not binding upon him, also that he was not properly represented in the suit and praying for a declaration that the decree was not binding upon him. The District Munsif found that the second defendants guardian-ad-litem had never consented to act and granted the prayer that the decree was not binding. The plaintiff then applied successfully to have the suit reopened as against second defendant with a proper guardian. Both lower Courts have found on the rehearing that the debt was not binding upon second defendant inasmuch as it was only justified as being for trade, and-there was no proof that this is a trading family. The plaintiff appeals and attacks this finding mainly on the ground that in O. S. No. 50 of 1920 a direct issue was raised and determined:

Is the hypothecation debt contracted by the second defendant binding on the plaintiff and the finding on that i