1. This is an action brought on an equitable mortgage against Shragers, Limited, - Adel Shrager, Adolphe Shrager and Kirtikar; two other persons Prokash Chunder Dutt and Waresh Chunder Dey are made defendants as being interested in the mortgaged property. The money advanced on the mortgage was paid through Mr. F.M. Leslie, the attorney, and the defendants other than the last two, subsequent to the advance and the deposit of deeds with Mr. Leslie, sent a memorandum placing on record the fact of the advance and that they deposited the title deeds of the Nudkhurki and Isabell Collieries together with the lease of the premises No. 10 to 15/1, Canning Street, by way of collateral security. The same parties, I should say, had executed promissory notes in respect of the advances. Some seven or eight months after the deposit of the deeds in question, the Canning Street lease was withdrawn and there was deposited in place thereof a lease of Nos. 14, 14/1 and 14/4, Old China Bazar Street. The Canning Street lease was in favour of Adolphe, Adel and Kirtikar. The Old China Bazar Street lease was in favour of Adolphe and Kirtikar. The only defendant who has appeared is Prokash and the point which he takes is that this Court has no jurisdiction to make a mortgage decree, because one of the defendants, namely, Adel Shrager is not a party to the Old China Bazar Street lease. Her interest, he says, is only in the property outside the jurisdiction and, therefore, no decree can be made. I am unable to accede to the proposition. The defendants incurred a joint debt and that debt was secured by a mortgage on which they were jointly responsible. The memorandum which was given after the Old China Bazar Street lease was deposited, is signed for Adel Shrager by her duly constituted attorney. She, therefore, was a party to, and authorised the deposit of that lease. To my mind, the question whether she was a party to he lease itself in no way affects the question of the jurisdiction of this Court. The' documents are pledged by the authority of all the mortgagors as security for the repayment of a debt which they jointly incurred. Part of the property so made a security for repayment of the joint debt is within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court. I do not think it is relevant to enquire what interest each mortgagor has in the particular properties comprised in the securities, nor do 1 think, even if it be shown that Adel Shrager had no interest in the deed which she deposited jointly with others, that that affects the jurisdiction of this Court on the mort gage which all the defendants join in making in favour of the plaintiffs. The result is, there will be the usual mortgage decree in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of their lien on the shares which be long to the defendants, and liberty is given to apply for the sale of the same, if necessary. Prokash will pay costs of the action on scale No. 2.