JUDGMENT

John Edge, Kt., C.J. - In this case, the plaintiffs sued the sons upon an hypothecation bond which was given by their father. The family was a joint Hindu family. The plaintiffs gave no evidence as to the circumstances under which the bond was given or to show that any inquiry bad been made by them. The defendants, on the other hand, have given no evidence as to the circumstances under which the bond was given. In both Courts, the Judges decreed the claim so far as the father's interest in the property was concerned and dismissed the claim so far as the interests of the other parties (the defendants) were concerned. The single question before us is as to upon whom the onus of proof lies. Pandit Ajudhia Nath hand Mr. Ram Prasad have contended that the onus of proof was on the defendants, and that their clients, the plaintiffs, were entitled to succeed, unless it was shown that the bond was given for ill gal or immoral purposes. In support of this contention, they cited the following cases: Narayanacharya v. Narse Krishna I. L. R. 1 Bom. 262 Luchmun Dass v. Giridhur Chowdhry I. L. R. Cal 855 Gunga Prasad v. Ajudhia Pershad Singh I. L R. Cal. 131 Girdharee Lall v. Kantoo Lall