JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 23rd August 1898. A number of defences were taken and amongst others was the defence that there was no legal necessity for the mortgage. The mortgage, we may mention, was made by a Hindu widow of the name of Musammat Parbati. The Court of first instance found that the mortgage was duly executed and that the consideration was paid. That Court did not expressly go into the question of legal necessity, nor was it necessary for it to do so if the view which it took on the question of res judicata was correct. The lower Appellate Court confirmed the decree of the Court of first instance. The defendants, Chhitar Mal and Debi Ram, have appealed.. They are the purchasers of a part of the mortgaged property. It is contended on their behalf that the Court below was wrong in holding that the question of legal necessity or the amount due upon the bond was res judicata. In our opinion their contention is well founded. It appears that a previous suit was brought on foot of a mortgage, dated the 7th of February 1896, by one Janki Prasad in whom that mortgage had vested. He made defendants to the suit the widow, who was t