1. This appeal is by defendants 3 to 6 against the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in a suit brought on a mortgage bond Ex. A, dated 8th November 1916, executed by defendant 1s father. The appellants defendants are purchasers of the equity of redemption in execution of a money decree obtained by them after the mortgage. The Subordinate Judge granted a decree. Two points are argued in appeal. The first is that the mortgage bond is not supported by consideration and is merely nominal. The Subordinate Judge discusses the evidence. We see no reason to differ from his estimate of the evidence. The burden of proof is upon the defendants. Not only have they not discharged the burden but there is considerable evidence for the plaintiff to show that consideration was fully paid. It is unnecessary to dwell on the oral and documentary evidence in detail.

2. The second point argued is that there is a charge on the suit land created in 1912 in favour of the Imperial Bank of India and these appellants having paid off the debt due to the Bank have become subrogated to that charge and therefore they have got a priority over, the suit mortgage bond. This point was not rais