JUDGMENT 1. The Subordinate Judge is in error in thinking that a sale or mortgage by the father cannot bind the sons share in the absence of an antecedent debt. The ruling in Venkatramanayya v. Venkatramana Das I.L.R. (1905) M. 200 must be read with reference to the facts of that case. 2. If there is justifying necessity for the sale or mortgage, the sons share would, undoubtedly, be bound, and this is not disputed before us. The erroneous view of the law taken by the Subordinate Judge has vitiated his judgment. 3. We, therefore, set aside his decree and remand the appeals for disposal according to law.