1. As the Munsif found that the debt was adjoint debt, and that finding was not disputed in appeal, we must decide following. Venkataramanna v. Venkayya I.L.R. M. 877 that no succession certificate was necessary. The strict interpretation put on that case by the Subor dinate Judge, viz., that it is only when the fact of the debt being a joint one appears on the face of the document, that a certificate is not necessary, has not been adopted by this Court itself which has recognized other proof of the debt being joint beyond what appears on the face of the document.
2. It has further been argued that this being a suit on a mortgage for sale of the mortgaged property, the Succession Certificate Act does not apply, and the case, Baid Nath Das v. Skamanarid Das I.L.R. 14 M. 877 has been relied on in support of the contention. That case, however, is in conflict with the Full Bench case, Feteh Gharid v. Muhammad Baksh I.L.R.(1894) A. 259 . We are not called upon to decide the matter now as we find for another reason that no certfiicate was required. The second appeal must, therefore, be allowed, and we reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif. The appellant's costs in this and the lower appellate Court must be paid by the respondents. The time for payment of the mortgage money is extended to three months from this date.