JUDGMENT Collister and Bajpai, JJ. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal. 2. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 6,000 by enforcement of a mortgage-bond which was executed on the 16th January, 1922. The amount advanced was Rs. 3,000 with interest at 6 per cent, compoundable annually. The mortgagors were Baldi Ram and his three nephews, namely, Sukh Ram, Defendant No. 1, Sheo Mohan, Defendant No 2 and Murli, now deceased There were 16 Defendants to the suit. The relationship between Defendants Nos. 1 to 8 will appear from the pedigree in the judgment of the Court below. It will be seen that Defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5, are the minor sons of Sukh Ram, Defendant No. 1, that Defendant No. 6 is the minor son of Sheo Mohan, Defendant No 2, that Defendant No. 7 is the son of Murli, deceased and that Defendant No. 8 is the grandson of Baldi Ram, deceased. Defendants Nos. 9 to 16 were alleged to be subsequent transferees. 3. The allegation in the' plaint was that the mortgage was executed for legal necessity, for the benefit of the family and to pay antecedent debts. 4. The suit was-contested by Defendants Nos. 3 to 8 and their defence was that the loan w is not taken either for legal necessity or for the benefit of the family or for paying off any antecedent debt. 5. The learned Judge of the Court below has found for the Defendants and has dismissed the suit. 6. The property mortgaged was a 9 anna odd share in Andhanwan mahal Ghair Khwahindgan. It was ancestral property and the family was joint at the material time. There is no controversy before us on these points. 7. In order to understand the matters in dispute it is necessary to state certain facts. On the 30th July, 1919, Mst. Sheo Kunwar sold a 16 anna share in mahal Ganga Prasad to 8 persons for Rs. 12,000. Among the vendees were Baldi Ram, deceased and his nephew Suraj Pal and from the pedigree Mt will be seen that Suraj Pal is a brother of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and of Murli, deceased Under the sale-deed Baldi Ram and Suraj Pal incurred a liability to pay Rs. 8,000 to the vendor out of the total consideration of Rs. 12,000, that is to say 4 annas out of 16 annas. 1 and 2 and of Murli, deceased Under the sale-deed Baldi Ram and Suraj Pal incurred a liability to pay Rs. 8,000 to the vendor out of the total consideration of Rs. 12,000, that is to say 4 annas out of 16 annas. The money due under the sale-deed was left with the vendees for payment to the vendor's creditor, a man named Bishun (sic) who had taken out execution of a decree which he had obtained against the vendor. Ii order to raise the money due from them Baldi Rim and Suraj Pal pawned jewellery for Rs. 2,250 and this they deposited by means of a tender dated 17th July, 1920, but they still had Rs. 750 to pay, with interest accruing upon it. 8. One of the vendees under the sale-deed of 30th July, 1919 was a man named Suraj Din. His share was 2 annas and his liability was for Rs. 1,500, but he died without making any payment. On the 19th November, 1921, his son, Brahm Din, sold this 2 anna share to Sukh Ram, Defendant No. 1, Sheo Mohan, Defendant No. 2, Murli, the deceased father of Ram Kirpal, Defendant No. 7, Sitla Prasad, a minor son of Suraj Pal and Ishwar Din, son of Baldi Ram, deceased. The consideration was left for payment to Bishun Dat. 9. On this date, therefore, Baldi Ram and Suraj Pal owed Rs. 750 plus interest to Bishun Dat under the sale-deed of 30th July, 1919 and Sukh Ram and others owed him Rs. 1,500 under the sale-deed of 19th November, 1921. On the 16th January, 1922 the mortgage-bond in suit was executed for Rs. 3,000 in respect to ancestral property and on the 19th January the mortgagors paid Rs. 2,469-10-0 to Bishun Dat in liquidation of Mst. Sheo Kunwar's mortgage and it is said that they paid the balance of Rs. 500 odd for legal necessity to a creditor named Suraj Pal. 10. As regards this last named amount, the only evidence is to be found in the deposition of Mahabir, one of the Plaintiffs, who says: The balance Baldi Ram had paid to Suraj Pal, as it was due to Suraj Pal. One Birga Sonar was telling me that Baldi Ram had paid nearly Rs. 500 to Suraj Pal. 11. This evidence is obviously worthless to prove legal necessity. One Birga Sonar was telling me that Baldi Ram had paid nearly Rs. 500 to Suraj Pal. 11. This evidence is obviously worthless to prove legal necessity. The first plea taken on behalf of the Appellants is that antecedent debts were created by the sale-deeds of 30th July, 1919 and 19th November, 1921 and the mortgage-bond in suit was therefore good, at least quoad Rs. 2,469-10-0. 12. This plea is contested on various grounds. It is contended (1) that when property is purchased and the sale consideration is not paid, there is no debt such as contemplated by Hindu law, (2) that the money due from Mst. Sheo Kunwar to Bishun Dat was upon a mortgage and that the former was not competent to recover it by suit from her vendees as a debt and therefore from this point of view also it must bi held that there was no debt to justify the mortgaging of ancestral property and (3) that if debts were created by the sale-deeds of 30th July, 1919 and 19th November, 1921, there was no antecedence or dissociation in fact and as regards the second sale-deed there was no real antecedence in time. 14. We will first deal with the second sale-deed, that is to say the sale-deed of 19th November, 1921, for we are clearly of opinion that apart from any other considerations which might arise, there was no dissociation in fact between this sale-deed and the mortgage-bond of 16th January, 1922. It will be recalled that in order to raise money to pay the consideration for the sale-deed of 30th July, 1919 Baldi Ram and Suraj Pal had to pawn their jewellery and even then the amount so fetched fell short of the amount due by Rs. 750. There is nothing to indicate that by the 19th November, 1921 the fortunes of the family had improved. On the contrary there is evidence to show that they were continuously falling. The learned Judge says: Mahabir Prasad, Plaintiff No. 1, has admitted that nearly Rs. 1,000 were due from the family prior to 1919.... In lieu of the old family debts the zamindari of mahal Ganga Prasad had been mortgaged with Mst. Anandi Kunwar in 1923. Mst. Anandi Kunwar has now obtained a decree and the zamindari of mahal Ganga Prasad has been put up for sale. 1,000 were due from the family prior to 1919.... In lieu of the old family debts the zamindari of mahal Ganga Prasad had been mortgaged with Mst. Anandi Kunwar in 1923. Mst. Anandi Kunwar has now obtained a decree and the zamindari of mahal Ganga Prasad has been put up for sale. On 5th September, 1923, Baldi Ram, Sukh Ram, Murli and Sheo Mohan had executed a mortgage-deed for Rs. 2,324 in favour of Brahm Din hypothecating this very property which is now in suit. The mortgage-deed of 1923 was executed in lieu of old debts. Part of the consideration of the mortgage-deed of 1923 consisted of a mortgage debt of 1909. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that when zamindari of mahal Ganga Prasad was purchased, the family of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 8 was heavily in debt and was not in a well off financial condition. 15. Further on he says: There can be no doubt that when two shares in mahal Ganga Prasad were purchased on 30th July, 1919 for Rs. 3,000, there was no money available to the family of Defendants Nos. 1 to 8, Rs. 2,250 had been raised by pawning family golden ornaments and had been deposited in Court in favour of Bishun Dat on 19th July, 1920. The ornaments could not be redeemed and they are now lost to the family for ever. The sons of Ram Bharos--that is to say Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Murli--although they had no money and were actually in debt, yet they did not (sic) satisfied by purchasing only 4 annas share. On 21st November, 1921, Sukh Ram and others purchased another two annas share from Brahm Din, son of Suraj Din. They had now to pay Rs. 2,250, the balance of the purchase price and in order to obtain this amount ancestral property had to be mortgaged on 16th January, 1922. The low financial condition of the family of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 8 is apparent from the fact that more than Rs. 200 had to be paid only on account of interest as the dues of Bishun Dat could not be deposited in time. 16. These facts and the observations of the learned Judge are not controverted and in this connection we may refer to the evidence of Ram Kirpal, Defendant No. 8, who says: When the property was purchased from Mst. 200 had to be paid only on account of interest as the dues of Bishun Dat could not be deposited in time. 16. These facts and the observations of the learned Judge are not controverted and in this connection we may refer to the evidence of Ram Kirpal, Defendant No. 8, who says: When the property was purchased from Mst. Sheo Kunwar there was a debt of nearly Rs. 4,000 due from the joint family. Rs. 1,100 were due to Brahm Din Pandey, Rs. 900 were due to Ram Nihorey. About Rs. 1,000 were due to Ram Parpan. Interest at the rate of about Re. 1 per cent, per mensem used to be paid on these debts. The family income was not sufficient to meet the payment of interest In lieu of the debt of Mst. Anandi Kunwar, the zamindari of mahal Ganga Prasad had been mortgaged. Mst. Anandi Kunwar has obtained a decree and she has put up the mortgaged property to sale. The debts of Ram Nihorey, Ram Parpan and Brahm Din have also not yet been paid. Even the ancestral property has gone away on account of purchasing the property from-Mst. Sheo Kunwar. Rs. 2,250 were raised by pawning gold belonging to the family. That money has not been paid so far. 17. In Raghunath Singh and Another Vs. Modnarayan Singh and Others, AIR 1928 Patna 83 two persons sold a certain property on the 16th January, 1911, to a person named Modharayan. The vendee did not pay the consideration money but undertook to discharge the liability of the vendors to the extent of Rs. 5,500 and to enable him to do this the vendee executed a mortgage of ancestral property on the 21st January, 1911. On page 84 Das J. observed: Now in this case Modnarayan had obviously no money to discharge the obligation under the transaction of the 16th January, 1911 and in my opinion it is impossible to say that at the date when he entered into the transaction of the 16th January, 1911, he did not know that he could only discharge his obligation by borrowing money on the security of the joint family properties. 18. Further on he says: I hold that there was no real dissociation in fact between the two transactions and that the Plaintiffs cannot rely upon the doctrine of antecedent debt in this case. 19. 18. Further on he says: I hold that there was no real dissociation in fact between the two transactions and that the Plaintiffs cannot rely upon the doctrine of antecedent debt in this case. 19. It is true that in that case there was an interval of five days only, whereas in the present case there was an interval of nearly two months, but having regard to the circumstances in which the family stood, we are of opinion that on the 19th November, 1921, the vendees had no prospect whatsoever of paying off the consideration for the sale-deed of that date except by alienating the ancestral estate. The burden of proving the contrary lay on the Appellants and they have not discharged it and in the circumstances we think it is reasonable to hold that on the 19th November, 1921, the vendees must have had the mortgage-bond in suit in contemplation. This being so, we find that there was no dissociation and no real antecedency in fact between the two transactions. These considerations do not, however, apply to the sale deed of 30th July, 1919, which was executed 2 1/2 years before the mortgage-bond in suit and it is not unreasonable to suppose that at the time when this sale-deed was executed the vendees thought that they would be able to pay up the consideration money. They pawned their jewellery for this purpose. It is true that by so doing they only obtained Rs. 2,250 instead of Rs. 3,000, but they may well have anticipated that they would be able to secure the full amount required. There was clear antecedency in time and in our opinion there was also dissociation in fact between the sale-deed of 30th July, 1919 and the mortgage-bond of 16th January, 1922. One of the contentions on behalf of the Respondents is that the mortgagors had no power under the Hindu Law to bind the interests of certain members of the family and that the mortgage is, therefore, invalid in its entirety. As we know, the vendees under the sale-deed of 30th July, 1919, were Baldi Ram and his nephew Suraj Pal. The mortgagors in respect to the mortgage-bond in suit were Baldi Ram, deceased, Sukh Ram, Defendant No. 1, Sheo Mohan Defendant No. 2 and Murli the deceased father of Ram Kirpal, Defendant No. 7. As we know, the vendees under the sale-deed of 30th July, 1919, were Baldi Ram and his nephew Suraj Pal. The mortgagors in respect to the mortgage-bond in suit were Baldi Ram, deceased, Sukh Ram, Defendant No. 1, Sheo Mohan Defendant No. 2 and Murli the deceased father of Ram Kirpal, Defendant No. 7. The debt remaining due under the sale-deed of 30th July, 1919, was Rs. 760. We do not know what proportion of this was due from Baldi Ram and what (sic) was due from Suraj Pal, but Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that these two were jointly and severally liable and that the whole sum of Rs. 750 was therefore a debt due from Baldi Ram. We will first consider the matter on the assumption that this is correct. 20. Suraj Pal was not a party to the mortgage bond in suit and Baldi Ram could only bind his son Ishwar Din, who is now represented by his son Kesho Ram, Defendant No. 8. Baldi Ram could not bind his nephews Sukh Ram, Sheo Mohan and Murli and the latter were not competent to bind their sons, Defendants Nos. 3 to 6, for an antecedent debt due from their uncle Baldi Ram. Only a I father can alienate ancestral property I for his antecedent debt--vide, Chiranji Lal v. Bankey Lal (1933) 1 AWR 306 (FB). In the last-named case the two uncles and the mother of the Plaintiff executed a mortgage to pay off the antecedent debts of the Plaintiff's father and grandfather and it was held by a Full Bench of this Court that the uncles could not create a valid mortgage binding on the estate in order to liquidate a debt incurred by the grandfather or father of the Plaintiff. At page 309 after mentioning the case of Brij Narain v. Magla Prasad (1924) 46 All. 95 : AIR 1924 PC 50 , Mukerji A.C.J.--who delivered the judgment--said: It will be noticed that it is the privilege of the father alone to burden the family estate by a mortgage, by discharging an antecedent debt which must be a debt of his own. A manager of the family who is not the father cannot bind the estate merely by discharging a pre-existing debt of the family. 21. A manager of the family who is not the father cannot bind the estate merely by discharging a pre-existing debt of the family. 21. Learned Counsel for the Respondents points cut, however, that the learned Judges affirmed the decision in Anantoo Kalwar and Another Vs. Ram Prasad Tivari and Others, AIR 1924 All 465 . In that case there were two brothers Jagat and Sahadeo. Jagat had two sons, Ram Das and Ram Prasad and Sahadeo also had two sons, Ram Rup and Lalji. Sahadeo and Ram Das executed a sale--deed in respect to ancestral property. Thereafter the two sons of Sahadeo and also Ram Prasad sued for a declaration that the sale-deed was not binding on them for the reason that it was not executed for any legal necessity. this Court found that the transfer by Sahadeo and Ram Das had liquidated a mortgage previously executed by Sahadeo and Jagat and that therefore the sale by Sahadeo was to pay off his antecedent debt and it was therefore binding on the latter's two sons. As regards Ram Das it was held that he was bound by his own transfer, but that Kam Prasad was entitled to recover his own 4th share, On the strength of this decision, affirmed by the Full Bench in Chiranji Lal v. Bankey Lal (1933) 1 AWR 306 (FB), it is contended on behalf of the Appellants that the mortgage-bond in suit if not good in its entirety, is at least good quoad the share of Kesho Ram, Defendant No. 8. In reply to this contention Learned Counsel for the Respondents pleads that the learned Judge were probably misled by an incorrect report of the Privy Council case of Brij Narain v. Magla Prasad (1924) 46 All 95 : AIR 1924 PC 50 . When first reported in 21 A.L.J. 934, proposition (3) at the end of the judgment read as follows: If he purports to burden the estate by mortgage, then unless that mortgage is to discharge an antecedent debt, it would not bind more than his own interest. 22. The correct reading is: It he purports to burden the estate by mortgage, then unless that mortgage is to discharge an antecedent debt, it would not bind the estate. 23. 22. The correct reading is: It he purports to burden the estate by mortgage, then unless that mortgage is to discharge an antecedent debt, it would not bind the estate. 23. It is conceivable that in Anantu Kalwar's case the learned Judges may have been misled, but we cannot say with any certainty that this was so and it is difficult to see how there can have been any misunderstanding in 1933, when the Full Bench affirmed that decision and we must accept the view which was expressed by the Full Bench. 24. This however, is on the assumption that Baldi Ram and Suraj Pal were jointly and severally liable for the sum of Rs. 750; but the mere fact that they were both vendees under the sale-deed of 30th July, 1919, does not compel the view that there was a joint and several liability as between themselves The onus lay on the Appellants and they have made no attempt to show that Baldi Ram was liable for the whole consideration of the sale-deed or alternatively to show what proportion was due from Baldi Ram and what proportion was due from Suraj Pal. They could easily have had a recital in the mortgage-bond in suit, but there is no such recital. Since; therefore, it is impossible to say what proportion of the sale consideration represented an antecedent debt due from Baldi Ram the Appellants cannot claim on the basis of the Full Bench decision affirming the decision in Anantu Kalwari's case that the mortgage-bond in suit is good quoad the interest of Kesho Ram, Defendant No. 8, the grandson of Baldi Ram. 25. According to the ages stated in the plaint, none of the minor Defendants were in existence at the time when the mortgage-bond in suit was executed, but--leaving aside the four mortgagors--Ram Kirpal, Defendant No. 7, was them IS years of age according to the age which he gave at the time of his deposition in 1934 and it was therefore open to him to impeach the validity of this mortgage bond on the ground that even as regards the interest of Defendant No. 8, there was no antecedent debt justifying the transfer For the reasons which we have given we are of opinion that the mortgage-bond in suit cannot be held valid even to the extent of Kesho Rani's interest in the ancestral estate. 26. 26. The other plea advanced on behalf of the Appellants is that the Respondents have enjoyed the benefit of the property and cannot now be heard to repudiate the validity of the mortgage bond in suit. 27. This plea was not taken in the Court below and it finds no place in the memorandum of appeal before us. In order to determine the question which is raised by this plea we shall have to consider various facts and we do not therefore think that the plea is entertainable. We may, however, say that even if we did entertain it, it would not prevail. The income from the 6 anna share of mahal Ganga Prasad was Rs. 120 per annum and our attention has been drawn on behalf of the Appellants to an admission in the cross-examination of Ram Kirpal, Defendant No. 8, who says: Ever since the 3/8ths share of mahal Ganga Prasad had been purchased we had been realising Rs. 120 more or less in excess of the income from our ancestral property. 28. The purchased property was mortgaged to Mst. Anandi Kunwar 11 years before the suit--vide the statement of this same Defendant at page 11. This was presumably a simple mortgage and Ram Kirpal has admitted that the property was still in the possession of the family at the date of his deposition. Against this there is the admission of Mahabir, Plaintiff No. 1 who says: After the property of mahal Ganga Prasad of village Andhanwan had been purchased, Baldi Ram and others used to derive benefit from that property until it had passed away from their hands by various transfers. 29. The learned Judge says: As I have said above, the income from the 6 anna share of mahal Ganga Prasad used to be Rs. 120 in a year and although the mortgage-deed in suit carried a very low rate of interest, yet the total interest on Rs. 3,000 used to come to Rs. 180 annually. Thus Sheo Mohan and others, the mortgagors, had to pay more on account of interest on the money which they had borrowed to purchase property than what the property purchased itself brought in a year as profit. 30. This finding is not challenged and in the circumstances we are unable to see that the family has derived any benefit whatsoever from possession of the property purchased from Mst. Sheo Kunwar. 30. This finding is not challenged and in the circumstances we are unable to see that the family has derived any benefit whatsoever from possession of the property purchased from Mst. Sheo Kunwar. It is true that the plea is not based on the ground that the transaction was beneficial to the family, but is based on the ground that a person who has received by possession such benefit as is derivable from the property cannot be heard to repudiate the transaction, but this plea cannot prevail where no benefit of any kind is proved and on the contrary the transaction is shown to have been detrimental. Moreover, having regard to the conflicting admissions which have been made by Ram Kirpal, Defendant No. 8 and by Mahabir, Plaintiff No. 1, we cannot even say with any certainty how long the property remained in the actual possession of the family. 31. For the reasons given in this judgment we dismiss the appeal with costs.