John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blennerhassett, J.@mdashThe plaintiff brought his suit for sale on a mortgage made by a married Hindu lady in the life-
time of her husband of property which had come to her from her father and was not her stridhan. The consideration for the mortgage was money
advanced by the plaintiff to the lady in order to enable her to get her daughter married. Her daughter was the daughter of her husband then living.
The lady also had a son living, who is still a minor, and is a defendant to this suit. Her husband was diet Singh. The defence is that she had no
power to grant the mortgage in question. The first Court decreed the claim. The Court of First Appeal dismissed the suit. As we read the judgment
of the Court below, the greater part of Chet Singh''s property was mortgaged, and what remained was barely sufficient for the support of himself
and his family. It was under these circumstances that Alaf Kuar borrowed the money and made the mortgage. There can be no doubt that it was
the father''s duty in this instance to get his daughter married. His son was a minor, and, so far as appears, they were the sole members of the family.
The father was unable out of his resources to effect the marriage of his daughter, and thereupon Alaf Kuar, the mother of the girl, was obliged to
have recourse to the property that came from her father to her. There is no doubt of its being the pious duty of the father to effect the marriage. He
was unable to do so; so under these circumstances we think that the money, the consideration of this mortgage, was borrowed for necessary
purposes, namely, the marriage of the daughter. We allow this appeal, and set aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court and restore the
decree of the first Court with costs in all Courts.
