JUDGMENT

Kanhaiya Lal, J. - The question for consideration in this appeal is, whether a certain mortgage-bond executed by Gokla, the father of the defendant-appellant, for Rs. 550 was executed for legal necessity. The Court of first instance found that no legal necessity had been established. The lower Appellate Court, however, came to the conclusion that out of the sum of Rs. 550 secured by the mortgage there was a legal necessity to the extent of Rs. 325 which had been paid to a prior creditor named Raghunandan. In the mortgage bond in suit it is recited that Rs. 325 were left with the mortgagee for payment to Raghunandan on account of four prior usufructuary mortgage-deeds. These mortgage-deeds were produced but not proved. The learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant contends that, if Rs. 325, for which a legal necessity has been found by the Court below to have been established, were paid in satisfaction of those prior usufructuary mortgage-deeds, that payment cannot be taken to be a payment made in satisfaction of an antecedent debt within the meaning of the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh 39 Ind. Cas. 280 : 39 A. 407 : 21