Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.
1. In order to sustain a mortgage by a Hindu father it must be shown that the moneys were required for necessary purposes, in which is now included payment by a father of an antecedent debt which it would be a pious duty in the son to discharge. Unless the respondents proved that the purpose (or which the debt was incurred was such, or that they in good faith believed it to have been such, as justified the mortgage, they cannot rely on that instrument except in so far as it affects the father's share.
2. A son is, however, bound to discharge a debt of the father which he cannot how to have been contracted for an improper purpose to the extent of ancestral property which may come to his hands.
3. In a suit brought against him to enforce that liability, the burden of proof as to the nature of the debt would lie on him.
4. We reverse the decree in respect of a one-fourth share of one visam of the field known as Konupulugaruvu and decree the claim; but as the plaintiff has not offered to discharge the father's debt, we shall direct both parties to bear their own costs.