The defendants are the appellants and the appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of money due on a mortgage bond for Rs. 400 executed on 5th February, 1931, by the first defendant, the father of defendants 2 and 3, in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court found that the mortgage bond was supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 75 only and gave a decree for that amount and interest thereon. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned District Judge of North Arcot at Vellore holding that the burden of proof was on the defendants following the observations of the Privy Council in Bhagwan Singh v. Bishambar Nath1, held that it is not for the plaintiff to prove affirmatively the passing of the consideration and decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence this second appeal.

It is true in this case evidence was let in by both parties examining a witness each and the case could have been disposed of on that evidence without adverting to the burden of proof. As a matter of fact the trial Court framed the issues as if the burden was on the defendants and evidence was let in on the basis that the burden was on the defendants. So the learned District Judge could have easily dispo