Somayya, J.

1. The only question in this second appeal is whether when the father of an undivided son of a joint Hindu family executes a mortgage and the mortgagee brings a suit on it, the onus of proving consideration for the mortgage is on the mortgagee or whether it is for the son to prove want of consideration. The suit mortgage was executed by the father of the first defendant and the suit was filed against the son, the first defendant, and the second defendant a subsequent mortgagee. The son denied consideration as well as necessity for the mortgage. Both the points were found by the trial Court against the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge agreed with the District Munsiff in holding that there was no necessity for the mortgage but he gave a decree against the executants half share in the suit property. On the question of consideration he held that the onus of proving want of consideration is upon the son, the first defendant, and that he did not discharge it. It was also found that there was no necessity or antecedent debt to support the mortgage against the sons share. The Subordinate Judge gave a decree against the fathers half s