JUDGMENT : PIGGOTT, J. The plaintiffs in this case are the sons of one Hanuman, who in the year 1893, executed in his own name a mortgage by conditional sale of certain property, the stipulated period for repayment being 4 years. That period having expired, the mortgagee instituted a suit in 1897, making Hanuman alone a party to the suit. There was a preliminary decree on the 29th of November, 1897, and a decree absolute for foreclosure on the 13th of July, 1898. The plaintiffs in the present case sue to redeem, upon the allegations that they were living jointly with their father, that the property mortgaged was ancestral property, and that the mortgagee failed to implead them in his suit for foreclosure, although he knew of their existence and their interests in the mortgaged property. The courts below having decreed the claim, the first and principal point taken before us in second appeal is that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any decree upon the facts set forth in the plaint. We have had to consider whether we ought to allow this plea in view of the fact that it was not taken before the lower appellate court. We find in the written statement a general plea that the plaintiffs had no right to redeem the mortgage. We find that the plea is one which goes to the very root of the case, being, as we have said above, a plea that on the facts as stated in the plaint the plaintiffs have no right to the relief claimed. Following the principle of the ruling of this Court in the case of the Secretary of State for India v. Sukhdeo[1899] I.L.R., 21 All, 341, we think that we ought to allow this plea to be taken. We are further of opinion that it is a plea which must prevail. There is one case of a Division Bench of this Court, namely, Ram Prasad v. Man Mohan, [1908] I.L.R., 30 All., 256, which is in favour of the respondents. We are further of opinion that it is a plea which must prevail. There is one case of a Division Bench of this Court, namely, Ram Prasad v. Man Mohan, [1908] I.L.R., 30 All., 256, which is in favour of the respondents. It has been pointed out, however, in two subsequent cases, namely, Balwant Singh v. Aman Singh, [1910] I.L.R., 33 All., 7 and Kehri Singh v. Chunni Lal, [1911] 8 A.L.J.R., 216, that the decision in Ram Prasad v. Ram Mohan is not really to be reconciled with the principle underlying the Full Bench case—Debi Singh v. Jia Ram [1902] I.L.R., 25 All., 214, which is the standard authority of this Court on this question. 2. The property having passed out of the family, whether by private sale in satisfaction of an antecedent debt, or by an auction sale in execution of a mortgage decree, or by virtue of a decree absolute for foreclosure, the sons of a Hindu father whose property has thus passed out of the family are bound by virtue of their liability to pay their father's debt not tainted with immorality so that they cannot sue to set aside an alienation which has thus become final, except on some ground which would relieve them from the liability to pay the debt which is the consideration for the sale. On the authorities, as they now stand, it appears that the case of Ram Prasad v. Ram Mohan, has been so dissented from that we are not bound by it, and it can no longer be accepted as good law. This appeal must prevail. We set aside the decrees of the courts' below and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs.