JUDGMENT Mukerji and Bennet, JJ. - This is a cross-objection in First Appeal No. 69 of 1929, an appeal which has been dismissed for want of prosecution. The case arose from a simple mortgage executed on the 24th May, 1915, by Bhola Sahi Defendant No. 1 and his father Mahadeo Sahi in favour of the Plaintiff Nepal Ram who is now dead. The suit has actually been decreed for the whole amount in the plaint but by an error the cross-objection asks that this Court should "decree the whole suit against the whole of the property mortgaged". Actually the whole suit has been decreed but it has not been decreed against the whole of the property mortgaged. What the Learned Counsel asks for in the cross-objection is that the suit should be decreed against the whole of the property mortgaged. Actually the lower Court has decreed it only against that portion of the property which is not ancestral, and this actually is that portion of the property which was mortgaged which had been acquired by pre-emption. The remaining portion of the property which was mortgaged was ancestral property. Out of the consideration in the mortgage Rs. 2,800 was borrowed for the payment of the money due on a decree of pre-emption which was obtained by the mortgagors. The question before us is whether it was necessary for the protection of the ancestral property that the mortgagor should acquire this decree for pre-emption. The property which was pre-empted consisted of shares in the two villages of Naunia Chappar and Rampur Khurd in which there were ancestral shares. The property pre-empted was considerably larger than the ancestral property in Rampur Khurd 11/2 annas was ancestral property and 71/2 annas was pre-empted. We follow the principle which was laid down in Amraj Singh and Others Vs. Shambhu Singh and Others [In this case it was observed by Sulaiman C.J., "On the one band, it cannot be said that money required by the manager of a joint Hindu family in order to pay the pre-emption money and costs for the acquisition of fresh property is in all cases without legal necessity or benefit to the family estate, and is therefore always outside the authority of the father. Nor can it be laid down, on the other hand, that every manager is entitled to borrow money in order to acquire fresh property by preemption. Nor can it be laid down, on the other hand, that every manager is entitled to borrow money in order to acquire fresh property by preemption. The answer to the question must depend on the special circumstances of each case."-Ed ]. It is necessary for the objectors the Plaintiffs to show that it was for the protection of the ancestral property that the expenditure in question was incurred. We consider that in the evidence in this case the Plaintiffs have failed to show this fact. 2. Accordingly the decree of the lower Court is correct and we dismiss the cross-objection with costs.