JUDGMENT
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for sale on foot of a mortgage. The only question before us is whether the payment of money by the mortgagee to the mortgagor for the purpose of the litigation was binding on the family and it was for the benefit of the family. It has been urged by the learned advocate for the appellant that as the mortgagor had instituted a suit for a declaration that a transfer by a Hindu widow was not binding on the plaintiffs in that suit as collaterals the loan was such that the joint family property was liable to repay as they were to be benefited by the transaction. The suit was a suit by certain members of a joint family for a declaration that a transfer by a Hindu widow was not binding on them. It was really to enforce a personal right of the individual members that the suit was brought and even if the suit had been decreed, and the widow had died, only one or two particular members of the family would succeed to the estate of the widow. A loan, therefore, for the purpose of vindicating such a right cannot, in our opinion, bind joint family property as it cannot be said that the family was being benefited by the loan. We are, therefore, of opinion that there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs.