WALI ULLAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal fay the decree-holder against au order passed by the execution Court whereby the objections filed by the sons of Bindeshri Prasad, the judgment debtor, were allowed and their three-fourths share in the property attached was released from attachment.

( 2 ) IT appears that a simple mortgage deed was executed on 8-10-1928 by Bindeshri Prasad for rs. 5,600 payable in five years in favour of the plaintiff, the Panchayati Akhara. The deed carried interest at fourteen annas per cent. per mensem. It also provided that if the mortgagor did not pay the interest within the stipulated period of five yeara, the mortgagee would be entitled to realise the entire amount of the mortgage debt either within the stipulated period or after the stipulated time, A suit for sale on the basis of the mortgage was instituted on 11-10-1932 and there was a clear allegation in the plaint that the mortgagor had not paid the interest as agreed upon. To this suit Bindeshri Prasad as well as bis three minor sons were impleaded as defendants.

( 3 ) THE claim was resisted by Bindeshri Prasad, the mortgagor, on the ground that the suit was premature and further on the ground that the executant had not signed the deed in the presence of the marginal witnesses of the document in suit. In addition to these pleas, the sons further pleaded that the mortgage debt was without legal necessity and that it was tainted with immorality as well.

( 4 ) THE trial Court found that there was legal necessity for the debt, that it was not tainted with immorality and lastly, that the deed had been duly executed. In view of these findings the suit was decreed for gale against all the defendants.

( 5 ) THE defendants went up in appeal to the High Court. It was P. A. No. 513 of 1938. The only ground pressed before the High Court however was that the mortgage deed had not been duly executed, The High Court found that the document was not proved to have been duly attested. In the result, the appeal was allowed and the decree of the Court of first instance was set aside; but inasmuch as the deed contained a personal cover ant to pay the amount borrowed with interest and the suit had been brought within six years of the registered mortgage deed, the High Court passed a simple money decree in favour of the plaintiff against Bindeshri Prasad, the executant of the deed. The suit was dismissed as against the sons. (The case is reported in Sindeshri Prasad v. Panchayat Akhara Maha Mirbani 1936 A. L. J. 297.

( 6 ) THE decree-holder applied for execution of the simple money decree. In execution of the decree, some house property was attached. This property admittedly belongs to Bindeshri prasad, the father (against whom the decree was passed) and also his three sons.

( 7 ) THE sons filed objections to the effect that the decree could not be executed against them as the suit was dismissed by the High Court so far as they were concerned. They claimed that their three-fourths share in the house property attached should be exempted from attachment and sale.

( 8 ) THIS objection of the sons has been allowed by the Court below which has followed a ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reported in Raja Ram v. Raja Baksh Singh, 13 Luck. 61. Against this order, the decree-holder has come up in the appeal to this Court.

( 9 ) THE only question which has to be decided in this appeal is whether the BODS share in the house property attached can be attached and sold in execution of the simple money decree.

( 10 ) IT has been strongly contended by Mr. Zutshi, the learned counsel for the appellants, that under Hindu law the entire joint family property including the shares of the sons, can be attached and sold in execution of the decree passed against the father. It has been further contended that the sons having failed to prove in the suit that the debt was tainted with immorality cannot now object to the attachment and sale of the property.

( 11 ) ON the o