1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of two mortgages, one dated the 30th of October 1897 and the other dated the 10th of September 1901. The name of the mortgagor was Bipat. Bipat was undoubtedly the managing member of the family to which the defendants belong. He was the father of some of the defendants and grandfather of others. The Court below has granted a decree for the sale of the mortgaged property on foot of the mortgage of the 30th of October 1897, but has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in so far as fie seeks to realise the amount of the mortgage dated the 10th of September 1901. Certain facts are admitted. The mortgage was made by Bipat alone. The purpose for which the money was raised was to purchase a house which had belonged to a woman, named Musammat Mango. The house was in fact purchased and the present mortgage included not only the property which the plaintiff now seeks to sell but also the very house which was purchased. Later on a certain person, claiming to be the reversioner to the property which Musammat Mango held as a Hindu widow, brought a suit to set aside the sale to Bipat. To that suit the present defendants were made parties as well as Bipat. All these persons resisted the suit, and even after the death of Bipat the present defendants appealed, still contending that the sale was a valid sale There is the clearest admission that they were interested in the sale and that the sale made by Musammat Mango was a sale to the whole undivided Hindu family. It is impossible to arrive at any other conclusion but that the purchase of Musammat Mango's house was a purchase by and for the benefit of the whole family, which was consented to by every adult member. The Court below has held that the legal necessity was not proved. This is true to this extent that it was not proved that the family could not possibly have lived without the purchase of the house. The learned Judge points out that they had managed to get on even after the loss of the house. There can be no dispute that the house was purchased by the whole family and with the consent of every adult member. Under the circumstances we consider that the mortgage which was made to secure part of the 'purchase-money which had to be borrowed, is a debt for which the family property is liable. The only other plea is that the rate of interest was exorbitant. We cannot say that the rate of interest is so exorbitant as to justify us insetting aside the contract of the parties. We, however, think that farther interest should not be allowed. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, vary the decree of the Court below by giving a decree in respect of the claim on the bond of the 10th of September 1901 also. The plaintiff will get interest upto the date we fix for payment at the contractual rate, thereafter no interest will be allowed. We fix six months from this date for payment and we direct that the parties do abide their own costs in all Courts as regards this part of the claim.