JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of the 24 Per gunnahs affirming the decree of the Court of first instance. The suit was founded upon a mortgage executed by a lady called Anandamoyi Dasi, on the 9th of May 1893, whereby she mortgaged a certain property to the Plaintiff, in which she was interested as a Hindu widow. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the, suit on the ground that there, was no legal necessity for the loan for which this mortgage was given; and the sole question before us now in appeal is whether that view of the case is correct or not. After giving the matter our careful consideration, we have come to the conclusion that the loan was justified by legal necessity, and, consequently, that the mortgagee was entitled to enforce his rights under the mortgage. What happened is this : This lady, Anandamoyi, was interested with some twenty-six other persons in an estate, she being interested as the representative of her deceased husband. On the 11th February 1888 one Ataulla Mondal, a tenant holding under the co-sharers jointly, preferred a complaint in a Criminal Court against his landlords, including Anandamoyi Dasi, to the effect that they had forged a kabuliyat, under which they asserted he held his tenancy. In order to meet the expenses incidental to the defence of these proceedings, the lady with her co-sharers, among whom was the present Defendant--the reversionary heir on the estate of the lady raised a loan on the security of a promissory note for a sum, apparently, of four hundred rupees. The payee of the note afterwards sued the lady and the other parties to the note, for the recovery of the sum secured thereby and obtained a decree on the 17th of September 1891, against all of them. Proceedings were taken subsequently in execution of this decree and a certain portion of the joint property of the judgment-debtors was attached and was advertized for sale. But, ultimately, for some unexplained reason all the property with the exception of the share belonging to Anandamoyi Dasi was released from attachment, and her property alone was brought to sale for the discharge of the liability of the judgment-debtors generally. After the sale, she appears to have made an application under sec. But, ultimately, for some unexplained reason all the property with the exception of the share belonging to Anandamoyi Dasi was released from attachment, and her property alone was brought to sale for the discharge of the liability of the judgment-debtors generally. After the sale, she appears to have made an application under sec. 310A of the CPC to have the sale set aside and to raise the money for this purpose, it was, that she executed the mortgage which is the subject-matter of this suit. She paid the money into Court and the sale was set aside and her property was restored to her. These are the circumstances of the case, and we are of opinion that they disclose a case of legal necessity not only for the raising of the initial loan which was contracted for the purpose of protecting the estate inherited by the lady from her husband from the attempt made by the tenant to release himself from his liability under his kabuliyat by means of a false charge of forgery brought against the lady and her co-sharers, but also for the mortgage. We think that in raising the money for the defence of these proceedings, the lady was discharging a duty which she owed to her husband's estate. Apart from that consideration, if she had raised the money for the protection only of her own person from the consequences of such a charge as was brought against her by Ataulla Mondal, and had that been her only justification we should have felt little difficulty in deciding that the loan would have been warranted by legal necessity. Here the case is stronger, because, as pointed out, she was acting in the interests and for the defence of her husband's estate. 2. Then when we come to consider the circumstances immediately connected with the raising of the mortgage loan we find that the lady borrowed the money for the purpose of saving her late husband's property from sale and of securing, for herself the only means of subsistence which apparently she possessed. We think therefore whether the matter be looked at, with reference either to the earlier or the later stages of these transactions, the lady was justified by legal necessity in raising the money in the way she did. 3. We think therefore whether the matter be looked at, with reference either to the earlier or the later stages of these transactions, the lady was justified by legal necessity in raising the money in the way she did. 3. Under these circumstances, we think that the decrees of both the Courts below must be set aside and the case must go back to the Court of first instance in order that it may be dealt with in advertence to these remarks and in accordance with law. The Respondent must pay the Appellants the costs of this appeal.