Spencer, J.

1. We must accept the learned District Judges findings of fact (1) that Exhibits B and C are genuine, (2) that family necessity has not been proved for the debts secured by Exhibit A apart from the fact that there was a prior debt due to the plaintiff secured by the previous instruments (Exhibits B and C) executed by the 1st defendant and 3rd defendant and their fathers which mortgaged the family property.

2. On the question of law, which is whether a prior mortgage over joint family property created by a father can be treated as an antecedent debt for the purpose of binding his sons interest in coparcener property in a subsequent mortgage between the same parties, I think we are bound to give the fullest effect to the words of Lord Shaw in Sahu Earn Chandra v. Bhup Singh (1917) 33 M.L.J. 14 If the arguments advanced before their Lordships are read with what preceded and followed this expression of the Judicial Committees opinion, there cannot be any doubt as to what was meant by the words " an obligation not only antecedently incurred but incurred wholly apart from the ownership of the joint estate or the security afforded or supposed to be available by such join