Lord Macmillan.-

Their Lordships have not found it necessary in this appeal to call upon counsel for the respondents. Counsel for the appellant has very properly accepted the position that the burden lies upon him to establish upon the evidence that the mortgage on which this suit was founded was tainted with immorality in this sense, that it was effected for the purpose of raising money to defray debts incurred by the mortgagor for immoral purposes. The learned Judge of the Subordinate Court decided the case in favour of Mr. Subba Row's client, but in doing so he states that he does not find the evidence sufficient to connect the particular cases of expenditure directly with the acts of immorality alleged. He adds however that it was said for the defence that-

“they have succeeded in showing that defendant 1 was leading a licentious life and living beyond his means, and there being nothing to show that there was any business on which the loans in question could have been expended, they were entitled to the presumption that those loans must have been expended for licentious purposes and that it was not necessary for them to prove that each item was expended on an immoral purpose.”

It