Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He sued to recover money due on a registered hypothecation bond, dated 23rd December 1910, Ex. A, executed by defendant ls paternal grandfather, Karuppa Goundan. The plea of defendant 1 was that the document sued on was not supported by consideration and that it was executed to spite defendant 1, and the particular reason for spiting defendant 1 was mentioned in the written statement and I do not think it necessary to mention the reason in this judgment. Issue 1 raised in the case was whether the mortgage sued on was true and supported by consideration. It was admitted that the property which was mortgaged to the plaintiff was the ancestral property of Karuppa Goundan, the mortgagor, and that defendant 1, as a coparcener, was also interested in that property. It is also admitted that defendant 1 was a major at that time. During the trial in the first Court the question arose as to the onus of proof. The District Munsif held that the onus of proof was on defendant 1, because the execution of the mortgage was proved and because there was an admission by the paternal grandfather of defendant 1 that