The main legal point established in the judgment is the joint liability of Nathu and Bhagwan and their interest in the mortgaged property for the total amount found due from both of them.

Kotva, A J C—This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage-deed dated the 5th July, 1912 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 and by Mst. Yashodi who acted as the guardian of her minor sons defendants 3 and 4, their father Kisan, defendant 1, being insane. The mortgagor-defendants' relationship appears from the following genealogical table:

2. Defendants 5 to 12 are subsequent lessees of the mortgaged property, in (sic)r Nathu, and defendants 13 and 14 are sub-sequent purchasers of a part of it from Bhagwan and his brothers. The mortgage-deed secures a sum of Rs. 20,000 made up as follows:

Rs. 12,000 due to Balakrishna Ramachandra Oka on prior mortgages agreed to be paid by the mortgagees,

Rs. 7,000 due to plaintiffs on prior bonds and a balance of accounts.

Rs. 1,000 due to Balwant Sahharam Lakhe on a prior mortgage by Yashodi Bai on behalf of Bhagwan during his minority agreed to be paid by the mortgagees.

3. The plaintiffs stated that Rs. 4,000 out of the Rs. 7,000 due to the plaintiffs were owed by Nathu alone and Rs. 3,000 by Bhagwan and his brothers. The lower Court held that Rs. 1,700 the amount of a bond plus interest thereon Rs. (sic)24-2-0 total Rs. 2,024-2-0 were due by Bhagwan and Rs. 4,000 by Nathu and his interest in the mortgage property were held liable for Rs. 1,000 and Bhagwan and his interest for Rs. 3,013 20.

4. The lower Court declined to make Nathu and Bhagwan liable each for the other's debts in spite of the joint liability undertaken by them in the mortgage bond. The suit was dismissed against defendants 3, 4 on the ground that no legal necessity was proved and as against defendant 15 Pundlik on the further ground that the debts were incurred by Nathu for immoral purposes. The liability of defendants 5 to 12 was made co extensive with that of Bhagwan. Defendant 16 Kisan was held to have no interest in the family property and no decree was passed against him.

5. I do not refer to the numerous pleas raised in defence such as the nominal nature of the transaction of mortgage, want of due attestation, minority of defendant 2, the exercise of undue influence, misrepresentation and fraud by the plaintiffs against defendant 2 and penal nature of the interest claimed by the plaintiffs, or to the pleas raised by the plaintiffs that Pundlik was not entitled to contest the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that he was not born at the date of the mortgage and that the debts were borrowed for legal necessity.

6. The issues bearing on these pleas have been decided by the lower Court against the parties raising them and the finding of the lower Court thereon are not challenged before us. An issue regarding the antecedent nature of Nathu's debts and Pundlik's liabilities therefore was not decided in view of the finding that the debts were incurred for immoral purposes.

7. The plaintiffs have appealed and only two contentions are pressed before us on their behalf:

(1) That each of the defendants 1 and 2 should be made jointly and severally liable for the total of the amounts in respect of which they are held liable.

(2) That defendant 15 Pundlik's Interest in the joint property should be made liable for the amount for which Nathu has been found liable on the ground that it constituted Nathu's antecedent debts which are not proved to have been incurred for immoral purpose.

8. Nathu and Bhagwan have not appeared in this Court; the only contesting party here is Pundlik.

9. As regards the first contention I am of opinion that it must succeed. The grounds on which the lower Court has made Nathu and Bhagwan each liable only for debts found due from himself appear in the following passages in paragraphs 28 and 40 of its judgments:

In view of the observation in paragraphs 19 and 20 of this judgment, it is clear that defendant 2 cannot be said to have executed the bond for no consideration. Mr. Oka's debt was contracted by Nathu alone. It does not appear to have been contracted for the benefit of defendant 2 or his brothers or th