RAMNATH BALIBHADRA Vs. SUNDARABAI W/O. SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit to enforce the mortgage dated 19-3-1923 executed by Gopal, father of the defendants 1 and 2, now deceased, in favour of Bandulal, the deceased son of the plaintiff Sunderabai. One of the sons of Gopal who was defendant 1 in the first Court died during the pendency of this second appeal.

(2.) THE appellant Ramnath was defendant 3 in the trial Court and he was impleaded on the ground that in an auction sale held on 81-1-1935 in execution of a Bimple money decree against Gopal this appellant purchased a half share of one of the items mortgaged under the mortgage deed in question, viz., Field No. 65. The mortgage claim has been decreed against this item of property by both the Courts below and Ramnath has therefore filed this appeal.

(3.) THE first Court held that legal necessity was not proved but the lower appellate Court has not given any finding oil; that point. I have myself gone through the evidence of Sunderabai (P.W. 1), and this is the only evidence on the point of legal necessity, and I have no hesitation in confirming the finding of the first Court that legal necessity for the amount of Rs. 565 advanced in cash was not-established.