JUDGMENT

Thomas Richardson, J. - This is a second appeal. The plaintiff who is the appellant before use seeks to recover the amount due under a bond purporting to create a simple mortgage as security for a loan made by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaint was filed more than six years but less than twelve years after the date fixed for repayment.

2. The, Trial Court, holding that the transaction was fraudulent and collusive and without jurisdiction, dismissed the suit.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge in the lower Appellate Court found on the evidence that there was consideration for the bond and that it was not a fraudulent and collusive document. Re was of opinion, however, that there was no reliable evidence to show that the bond was executed in the presence of two attesting witnesses and he accordingly confirmed the Munsif's decree of dismissal.

4. It appears that at the hearing in the Trial Court before any witnesses were examined, the defendant admitted his own signature on the bond but expressly denied execution in the presence of attesting witnesses. The entry in the order-sheet, under date 2nd December 1918, is as follows:

Parties ready. Defendant admits to have executed