JUDGMENT : Stanley, J.:— The suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs to redeem a mortgage executed by one Tota Ram, deceased, in favour of one of the defendants, Thakur Das. This mortgage was executed on the 14th of March, 1888, and by it Tota Ram purported to hypothecate the ancestral property belonging to himself and his sons. Thakur Das instituted a suit for recovery of the mortgage-debt, by sale of the mortgaged property, and the property was, in execution of a decree for sale passed in that suit, sold, and portion of it was purchased by Lal Singh, the appellant, in May, 1893. The sole mortgagor was Tota Ram, but the deed of mortgage was attested, by his three sons—Pulandar Singh, Gokul Singh (two of the plaintiffs), and Het Ram, the father of the remaining plaintiffs. Tota Ram was the head of the family and managing member, and his sons attesting the execution of the document must be taken to have admitted the necessity for the mortgage. 2. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiffs' claim and that decree was affirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal. 3. They held that inasmuch as the plaintiffs were interested in the mortgaged property and were not made parties to the suit which was instituted by Thakur Das, the mortgagee, they were not bound by the sale which took place in execution of that decree, and therefore are entitled to redeem the mortgage as parties having an interest in the mortgaged property. 4. From the decrees of the Courts below the present appeal has been preferred, the grounds of appeal being that the Courts below were in error in holding that the sale which took place in May, 1893, in favour of Lal Singh, could be impeached by the sons and grandsons of Tota Ram, the debt in respect of which the mortgage was executed not having been a debt contracted for immoral purposes. We are of opinion that this question is concluded by a ruling of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Debt Singh v. Jia Ram : [1902] I.L.R., 25 All., 214. We are of opinion that this question is concluded by a ruling of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Debt Singh v. Jia Ram : [1902] I.L.R., 25 All., 214. In that case it was held that where property belonging to a joint Hindu family has been sold by auction in execution of a decree obtained upon a mortgage executed by the father of the joint family, it is open to the sons of that father to sue for the recovery of their shares of the property so sold, provided they based their claim upon some ground which) under the Hindu law, would free them from liability as sons to pay their father's debt; but that a sale once having taken place, the sons cannot succeed in a suit to recover the property sold upon the sole ground that they were not made parties to the original suit. The decision in that case was based to a large extent upon rulings of their Lordships of the Privy Council, and particularly upon the statement of the law contained in the case of Girdhari Lal v. Kantoo Lal : [1874] L.R., 1 I.A., 321. In that case their Lordships stated the law as follows:— “This case, then, which is a decision of this tribunal, is undoubtedly an authority for these propositions—first, where joint ancestral property has passed out of a joint family either under a conveyance executed by a father in consideration of an antecedent debt, or in order to raise money to pay off an antecedent debt or under a sale in the execution of a decree for the father's debt, his sons by reason of their duty to pay their father's debt, cannot recover that property, unless they show that the debts were contracted for immoral purposes, and that the purchaser had notice that they were so contracted; and secondly, that the purchaser at an execution sale being strangers to the suit, if they had not notice that the debts were so contracted, are not bound to make inquiry beyond what appears on the face of the proceedings.” In the case before us there is no suggestion that the debt in respect of which the mortgage was given and the property was sold, was contracted for immoral purposes. The plaintiffs bring their suit merely on the ground that they were not impleaded as parties to the suit which was instituted by the mortgagee. It appears to us therefore, that the case is concluded by the decisions to which we have referred, which were apparently not brought to the notice the lower Courts. We further find a decision of a learned Judge of this Court in which the very point for decision in this appeal was determined on the principle laid down in the case of Debi Singh v. Jin Ram. In second appeal No. 641 of 1903; Banke Rat v. Raghubir, which is unreported, our brother BANERJI held that a suit similar to that which is before us, was not maintainable. The decision is dated the 6th of August, 1904. We, therefore, think that the Courts below were wrong in the decision at which they arrived, and we allow this appeal, set aside the decrees of the lower Courts and dismiss the plaintiff's claim with costs in all Courts, including fees in this Court on the higher scale.