HANUMAT MAHTON Vs. SONADHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit instituted on 3rd January 1917 to enforce a mortgage bond, dated the 5th January 1904, executed by defendant No. 1.

(2.) Originally defendant No. 1 the executant of the bond, and his brother defendant No. 2 only were impleaded, hut on the objection of the defendants, their sons also were added as defendants on the 5th March l917. The defendant No. 2 and his sons were, however, subsequently on the application of the plaintiff deleted from the category of defendants. The suit, therefore, proceeded to trial against defendant No. 1 and his sons, who are appellants here.

(3.) The first Court held that the mortgage-bond in question is a genuine document and was duly executed for valuable consideration. It, however, dismissed the suit on the grounds 11 Ind. Cas. 663 : 34 A. 4 : 8 A.L.J. 1015 that certain necessary defendants were not impleaded in time, and 24 Ind Cas. 356 : 26 M.L.J. 528 : 16 M. L. T. 76 : 1 L. W. 544 that the sons were not benefited by the loan and hence they or the joint family property amortgaged in the bond could not be made liable for the debt.