JUDGMENT 1. The only point raised in this appeal is whether the District Judge, when he set aside the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance and held that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the mortgage debt against Defendants Nos. 2 to 8 on their appeal, erred in law in refusing to grant the Plaintiffs a decree for the recovery of the mortgage debt against Defendant No. 1. In our opinion the grounds which the District Judge has given for refusing to grant the Plaintiffs a mortgage decree against Defendant No. 1 are not sufficient In law, The cases of Upendra Lal Mukerjee v. Girindra Nath Mukerjee 2 C. W. N. 425 : s. c. I. L. R. 25 Cal. 525 (1898), H. W. Hudson v. Basdeo Bajpye 3 C. W. N. 76: s. c I. L. R. 26 Cal. 109 (1898), and the Full Bench decision in the case of Rup Jaun Bibee v. Abdul Kader Bhuyan 8 C. W. N. 496: s. c. I. L. R. 31 Cal. 643(1904) are sufficient authority for the view which we take that in an appeal like the present by Defendants Nos. 2 to 8 against the decision of the Court of first instance in which the real contest in the case was whether Defendant No. 1, who was joined as Respondent with the Plaintiffs or Defendants Nos. 2 to 8 who were the Apellants, were liable for the mortgage debt, the Appellate Court has power to alter the decree of the Court of first instance BO as to make Defendant No. 1 who was a joint Respondent in the appeal with the Plaintiffs liable, and to direct that a decree to recover the mortgage debt against her be granted in favour of the Plaintiff. The case of Bishun Churn v. Jogendra Nath I. L. R. 26 Cal. 114(1898) on which the learned Judge has relied does not lay down a different principle. It is true, the other cases to which we have referred are suits for contribution, but we are of opinion that the principle laid down in those cases must be taken to apply equally to a case like the present. 2. 114(1898) on which the learned Judge has relied does not lay down a different principle. It is true, the other cases to which we have referred are suits for contribution, but we are of opinion that the principle laid down in those cases must be taken to apply equally to a case like the present. 2. We therefore set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and in lieu thereof direct that a mortgage decree in the ordinary form be granted to the Plaintiffs to recover the sum due under the mortgage from Defendant No. 1. An account will be taken of the amount due on the mortgage bond and on Defendant No. l's falling to pay the sum due within six months from the date of this decree the Plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the sum from Defendant No. 1 by sale of the property. 3. The Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their costs in this appeal and in the lower Courts from Defendant No. 1. Defendants Nos. 2 to 8 are also entitled to their costs of this appeal as well as to the costs in the lower Appellate Court which costs must be paid by Defendant No. 1 against whom more than against the Plaintiffs the appeal was directed.