Ganga Nath, J.
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by them against the defendants-respondents to recover money on the basis of a mortgage executed by defendant 1. The defendants contended that the mortgage had been satisfied by the sale of the mortgaged property in favour of defendant 2 who was a member of the joint family of the plaintiffs. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that defendant 2, the vendee of the mortgaged property, and the plaintiffs in whose names the mortgage-deed is, are members of the joint family and that their business is also joint. The plaintiffs and defendant 2 are own brothers and they have joint business. The Courts below have found that there are circumstances to infer safely that the money advanced to the mortgagor in this case came from joint funds and that it was equally right to infer that the property transferred by the mortgagor to one of the brothers only meant transfer of such property to the joint family of all the brothers, who are admittedly living jointly. There is not the slightest evidence to show that any of the members or defendant 2 has any self-acquired property in his own name. If the mortgagees and the vendee had not been members of the joint family and if the mortgagees had been persons totally unconnected with the vendee other considerations would have arisen. They being members of the joint family are virtually one and the same person. In Lachman Prasad v. Lachmeshwar Prasad 1922 All. 76, a mortgage was executed on 18th June 1908. The mortgagor sold, on 25th August 1914, the mortgaged property together with other property to the mortgagee's father. The father and the son were members of a joint family living together, and were to be deemed, as regards these transactions, as virtually the same person. The amount due on the mortgage was left with the vendee for discharge thereof. The mortgagee brought a suit on the mortgage. It was held that the suit was not maintainable, as the mortgage was fully discharged by the acceptance of the sale-deed.
2. In view of the findings of the lower Court which are quite correct and with which I agree, there is no force in the appeal. It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs and the decree of the lower Court be confirmed.