JUDGMENT Misra and Madeley, JJ. - This first appeal arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. 2. The facts are that on the 18th April, 1932, a mortgage deed was executed by Sheo Mangal Singh on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor nephew Sukhendra Bahadur Singh, for a sum of Rs. 2,000 in favour of Anant Ram and Mani Ram and hypothecated thereby certain properties which belonged to the joint family consisting of himself, his son, and his nephew, Sukhendra Bahadur Singh. Out of the amount borrowed it was stated in the mortgage deed that Anant Ram had advanced Rs. 1,300 and Mani Ram Rs. 700. After the passing of the Encumbered Estates Act Sheo Mangal Singh applied u/s 4. In his written statement u/s 8 he admitted the claim of the mortgagees but alleged that his liability was only to the extent of half, whereas the liability for the other half was on Sukhendra Bahadur Singh. Sukhendra Bahadur Singh was accordingly made a party to the proceedings and he disclaimed all responsibility for the debt on the ground that the mortgage deed was not supported by legal necessity or antecedent debt. It was, however, agreed on all hands that on hypothesis that the deed was valid and enforceable the actual amount due upon the mortgage deed was Rs. 3,449. The lower Court repelled the contention regarding the invalidity of the mortgage and passed a decree in favour of the creditors for a sum of Rs. 3,449 in this manner that Rs. 2,294 were payable to Anant Ram and Rs. 1,155 were payable to Mani Ram. Of these amounts the liability on the debtor applicants and on Sukhendra Bahadur was held to be half and half. Sukhendra Bahadur Singh has come up in appeal against that decree and he claims that decision as to his liability under the deed ought to be set aside and it should be held that the deed of 1932 was void. In the memo of appeal Sukhendra Bahadur Singh impleaded the debtor applicants, Sheo Mangal Singh and Mannu Singh, as well as the two creditors, Anant Ram and Mani Ram. It appears that in the Encumbered Estates Act proceedings there were 18 other creditors but these were not impleaded in the appeal. 3. In the memo of appeal Sukhendra Bahadur Singh impleaded the debtor applicants, Sheo Mangal Singh and Mannu Singh, as well as the two creditors, Anant Ram and Mani Ram. It appears that in the Encumbered Estates Act proceedings there were 18 other creditors but these were not impleaded in the appeal. 3. A preliminary objection to the competency of this appeal is taken by the creditors Respondents on the ground that the decree of this Court is likely to prejudicially affect the rights of the other creditors who have not been impleaded. It is urged that in the event of the Appellant's success the personal liability for the entire debt must fall upon the applicants and that the Respondents would be entitled to obtain relief under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure. As such an order, however, would be to the disadvantage of the creditors not impleaded, it cannot be made in their absence. Having regard to this aspect of the matter, it is said that this appeal falls within the rule laid down in Bishunath Prasad Chaudhri v. Sarju Saran Tewari 1941 O.A. 816 : A.W.R. (Rev) 884 : O.W.N. 1115, Jitendra Singh v. The Alliance Bank of Simla Ltd., 1941 O.A. 1074 : O.W.N. 1381: 1942 A.W.R. (C.C.) 39 Abdul Moeed v. Lal Astbhuja Prasad Singh 1942 O.A. 204 : A.W.R. (C.C.) 192 : O.W.N. 268 and Saubhagyawati Devi v. Deputy Commissioner, Kheri 1942 O.A. 217 : A.W.R. (C.C.) 205 : O.W.N. 300. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that these cases have no application to the present appeal inasmuch as the appeal of Sukhendra Bahadur Singh is confined to his liability and the result of allowing the appeal would merely to wipe it off. It is said that neither the applicants nor the other creditors would be prejudiced thereby. 4. After hearing prolonged arguments on this question we have come to the conclusion that the preliminary objection must prevail. Our allowing Sukhendra Bahadur Singh's appeal would attract the provisions of Order 41 Rule 35 CPC and would necessitate the presence of the other creditors who have not been impleaded. In our opinion therefore, those creditors are necessary parties to this appeal, and the principle of the rule laid down in the cases cited above is directly applicable. Our allowing Sukhendra Bahadur Singh's appeal would attract the provisions of Order 41 Rule 35 CPC and would necessitate the presence of the other creditors who have not been impleaded. In our opinion therefore, those creditors are necessary parties to this appeal, and the principle of the rule laid down in the cases cited above is directly applicable. In the absence of the other creditors this appeal is therefore incompetent and is accordingly dismissed with costs.