JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Rae Bareli, dated 1st May 1931, affirming a decree of the Munsif of Rae Bareli, dated 31st July 1930. The dispute in this case relates to a house and a shop appurtenant thereto, situate in Bazar Girdhariganj, hamlet of Bachrawan, in the District of Rae Bareli. The facts relevant to this appeal may be shortly stated. The property in suit originally belonged to one Dwarka. He died long ago leaving a mother (Mt. Bakhta), one married daughter (Mt. Sarju Dei) and one unmarried minor daughter (Mt. Sheo Rani). Mt. Sheo Rani is alive. Mt. Bakhta and Mt. Sarju Dei are dead. Mt. Bakhta had mortgaged the property in suit to defendant-respondent 1 and his brother Ganga (since deceased), father of defendant-respondent 2, for Rs. 400 bearing interest at 1 per cent per mensem, on 29th August 1916. The defendants are in possession of the sai'd property by virtue of that mortgage. Mt. Sheo Rani gifted the property in suit to the plaintiff-appellant on 31st August 1929. He brought the present suit claiming the property in suit as donee from Mt. Sheo Rani. He impeached the validity of the mortgage and claimed possession of the property without payment of any sum, as mortgage money to the defendants. He prayed in the alternative for possession of the property on payment of such amount as might be found due to the defendants on the mortgage in question.

2. The suit was contested by the defendants. They alleged that the mortgage was perfectly valid and that the entire consideration money was taken for the legal necessity of performing the marriage of Mt. Sheo Rani. The learned Munsif held that the mortgage was executed by Mt. Bakhta in the capacity of the guardian of Mt. Sheo Rani and for legal necessity, as alleged by the defendants. He therefore decreed the plaintiff's claim for possession of the property in suit but ordered the plaintiff to pay the entire money due on the mortgage to the defendants. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the decree of the first Court. He therefore appealed, contending that he was not liable to pay anything to the defendants. His appeal was however dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. The plainsiff has now come to this Court in second appeal. In our opinion there is no substance in this appeal.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the mortgage in question was executed by Mt. Bakhta as a do facto guardian of Mt. Sheo Rani. He has also found that Mt. Bakhta had borrowed the money to meet the expenses of the marriage of Mt. Sheo Rani. The money was thus borrowed for legal necessity. Dwarka had left only the property in suit. These findings are findings of. fact based upon admissible evidence and can-not be impugned in second appeal. We think that the learned Subordinate Judge has rightly interpreted the mortgage-deed mentioned above. The appellant's learned Counsel has contended before us that Mt. Bakhta could not bind the share of Mt. Sarju Dei which came to Mt. Sheo Rani subsequently. In our opinion this contention is not well founded. There appears to be some misapprehension about the succession of the daughters of Dwarka; Mt. Sarju Dei, being a married daughter of Dwarka, could not succeed to the property of Dwarka in the presence of her unmarried sister, Mt. Sheo Rani. The only person who was entitled to succeed to the property of Dwarka was his daughter Mt. Sheo Rani. Under the law of Mitakshara: "daughters do not inherit until all the widows are dead. As between daughters, the inheritance goes, first, to the unmarried daughters, next to daughters who are married and unprovided for, that is, indigent, and lastly, to daughters who are married and are enriched, that is possessed of means. No member of the second class can inherit while any member of the first class is in existence, and no member of the third class can inherit while any member of the first or the second class is in existence": see Mulla's Hindu Law, 6th Edn., p