Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was brought to obtain a mortgage decree for sale on the mortgage document Exhibit H, dated 11th May 1903, executed by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,150. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the undivided sons of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is still a minor, while the 2nd defendant was a minor on the date of the mortgage-bond Exhibit H.

2. According to the recital in Exhibit H the sum of Rs. 1,150 mentioned in it as consideration is made up as follows: (a) Rs. 833-8 0 being the sum due on the registered mortgage-bond Exhibit G of 1899; (6) Rs. 130-1-0 due on the simple debt bond of 1902 Exhibit K; (c) Rs. 42 received by the 1st defendant for excavating a well in the family garden; (d) Rs. 100 for discharging the debt of Nattukottai Karuppan Chettyar; (e) Rs. 43-7-0 received for excavating the well already mentioned and for family expenses; Total Rs. 1,150.

3. The 1st defendant (the father) as usual remained ex parte. His sons (the defendants Nos. 2 and 3) contended that their two-third share in the mortgaged properties cannot be affected by the mortgage because "the suit debt was not contracted ei