L MAHESH PRASAD Vs. JAGANNATH CHOUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point for deter-ruination in this appeal is whether an item of Rs. 85 out of the consideration for a mortgage executed by Sunder on 20 November 1916 is for legal necessity, or for the benefit of the joint Hindu family consisting of Sunder and defendant 3 who was a minor, so as to bind defendant 3.

(2.) The mortgage was executed by Sunder, the manager of the joint family, as security for a loan of Rs. 128. Out of this amount the Court below has found that the payment of Rs. 43 has not been proved. The balance of Rs. 85 was recited in the mortgage dead to have been borrowed for purchasing a camel, and the plaintiff and a witness of his deposed that Sunder did in fact bay a camel with the money lent. The only question is whether Sunder was legally justified in creating the mortgage upon the joint family property for the purpose of buying the camel.

(3.) This second appeal first came before a single Judge of this Court who stated that the facts found by the lower appellate Court, which must be accepted in deciding the second appeal, are: That Sunder cultivated about 3 or 4 bighas of laud and had a camel which was used as a pack animal let out on hire. The slender resources of the family were, to a certain extent, supplemented by what was earned as hire of the camel for carrying loads.