JUDGMENT

1. In our opinion this appeal must succeed. The plaintiff appellant brought the suit on the basis of a mortgage, but by a misdescription in the plaint he put the share hypothecated as being situated in the village Jogia, although, it was really situated in the village Udaipur. The defendants are the mortgagors and his descendants. The mortgagor did not defend the claim but his descendants raided the usual pleas that the bond was without consideration and was executed without any legal necessity. They also contested the factum of execution by the mortgagor. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on the finding that no legal necessity for the transfer had been made out. On appeal, however, a fresh complication arose. After the plaintiff appellant's argument was heard the case was adjourned at the respondents instance for a few days. In the meanwhile, it was discovered that, although the property which was really mortgaged was situated in Udaipur, the plaintiff in fact described it as being situated in Jogia. What really happened was that the money borrowed under the hypothecation bond in suit was for tie purpose of purchasing a certain share in Jogia for the benefit of the