http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: MALINI AYYAPPA NAICKER (NOW DEAD) THROUGH L.R. ETC.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SETH MANGHRAJ UDHAVDAS FIRM BY MANAGING PARTNER  CHATHURBHUJ

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/02/1969

BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. SIKRI, S.M. BACHAWAT, R.S.

CITATION:  1969 AIR 1344            1969 SCR  (3) 698  1969 SCC  (1) 688

ACT: Provincial   Insolvency   Act,   1920,   s.   75(1),   first proviso--Power  of  High  Court to satisfy  itself  that  an appeal was decided by the District Court "according to law"- Scope of.

HEADNOTE: The petitioning creditor in an insolvency proceeding  sought annullment of two mortgages, one for Rs. 15,000/- in  favour of the appellant in C.A. 845 and another for Rs. 10,000/- in favour the appellant in C.A. 846.  The mortgages were  dated November  4, 1950 and were registered on November  6,  1950. The  insolvency  Court  held that the-  mortgages  were  not supported by consideration and were executed with a view  to screening  some  of the properties of the  insolvents  ’from their creditors.  It therefore, annulled the mortgages under section  53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.  The  District Judge,  in appeal, reversed the findings of the trial  court but  the  High  Court, acting under  the  first  proviso  of section  75(1)  of the Act, set aside the  judgment  of  the District Judge and restored that of the Insolvency Court. in  an  appeal  to  this Court  by  special  leave,  it  was contended  on  behalf of the appellants (i)  that  the  High Court while acting under the first proviso of section  75(1) to satisfy itself "that an order made in any appeal  decided by the District Court was according to law" had no power  to disturb the findings of fact reached by the appellate court; the jurisdiction of the High Court is a very limited one and not  more  than that conferred on it by  sub-section  100(1) C.P.C.; and (ii) that the conclusions of the High Court were unsustainable on the evidence on record. HELD:     (i)  The  legislature did not confer on  the  High Court  ’under  the first proviso to s. 75(1) of the  Act  an appellate  power nor did it confer on if a  jurisdiction  to reappreciate the evidence on record.  While exercising  that power  the High Court is by and large bound by the  findings of  fact reached by the District Court.  If the  legislature intended  to confer power on it to reexamine both  questions of  law  and fact it would have conveyed  its  intention  by appropriate  words  as  has been done  under  various  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

statutes.  A wrong decision on facts by a competent court is also a decision according to law. [701 D] A  decision  being  "contrary  to law"  as  provided  in  s. 100(1)(a)  of  the Code of Civil Procedure is not  the  same thing  as  a  decision  being  not  "according  to  law"  as prescribed in the first proviso of s. 75(1) of the Act.  The latter expression   is  wider in ambit than the former.   It is neither desirable not possible  to  give  an   exhaustive definition of the expression "according to law".  The  power given to the High Court under the first proviso to s.  75(1) of the Act is similar to that given to it under s. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. [701 F] Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj, (1938) 40, Bom.  L.R.  125; Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lai Chowdhury, [1962] 1,  supp. S.C.R. 399; 699 Official Receiver, Kanpur and Anr. v. Abdul Shakur [1965]  1 S.C.R. 254; referred to and explained. (ii) On the evidence, the findings of the District Court  on the  payment of consideration were correct findings of  fact and the High Court could not have interfered with the  same. However, one payment in respect of the mortgage in C.A.  845 was not proved and the mortgage was therefore only valid  to the extent of Rs. 10,5001-.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 845 and 846 of 1963. Appeals  by special leave from the judgment and order  dated January 17, 1958 of the Madras High Court in Civil  Revision Petitions Nos. 981 and 982 of 1956. S.   V.  Gupte  and R. Thiagarajan, for the  appellants  (in both the appeals). Naunit  Lal, for the respondents Nos. 1(c) and 17  (in  C.A. No. 845 of 1963) and respondents Nos. 1 (c) and 16 (in  C.A. No. 846 of 1963). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. These appeals arise from an insolvency  proceeding wherein one Ponnayya Konar and his sons were adjudicated  as insolvents.  In the said proceeding the petitioning creditor sought  to  get annulled two mortgages one  for  Rs.  15,000 (Exh.  A-1) executed by the insolvents in favour of  Ayyappa Naicker,  the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 845 of 1963  and the other for Rs. 10,000 (Exh.  A-2), the subject matter  of Civil  Appeal  No. 846 of 1963, in favour of  one  Srinivasa Naicker,  the  father-in-law of the  aforementioned  Ayyappa Naicker.  The said Srinivasa Naicker is dead and the  appeal is  being  prosecuted by his  legal  representatives.   Both those  mortgages  are dated November 4, 1950 and  they  were registered  on November 6, 1950.  The Insolvency Court  held that those mortgages were not supported by consideration and that  they were executed with a view to screen some  of  the properties  of  the  insolvents from  their  creditors.   It accordingly  annulled  those mortgages under S.  53  of  the Provincial  Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to  as  the Act).   In  appeal the learned District Judge  reversed  the findings of the trial court.  He came to the conclusion that those  mortgages were fully supported by  consideration  and that they were genuine transactions.  The High Court  acting under  the 1st proviso to S. 75(1) of the Act  reversed  the judgment of the learned District Judge and restored that  of the  Insolvency  Court.   These appeals  have  been  brought against  the  decision  of the High  Court  after  obtaining

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

special leave from this Court. The  learned  Counsel-for  the  appellants  challenged   the decision  of  the  High  Court  primarily  on  two  grounds. According to him 700 the High Court while acting under the 1st proviso to S. 7  5 (1) of the Act had no power to disturb the findings of  fact reached by the appellate court.  Next he contended that  the conclusions  of  the  High Court are  unsustainable  on  the evidence on record.  The learned Counsel for the  contesting respondents supported the decision of the High Court. The two principal questions that arise for decision in these appeals  are (1) was the High Court within its  jurisdiction in  interfering  with the findings of the  learned  District Judge   that  the  impugned  transactions  are   bona   fide transactions  and that they were supported by  consideration and  (2)  are  the conclusions reached  by  the  High  Court correct  on  the facts and circumstances of the  case  ?  It would be convenient to take up first, the question as to the scope of the powers of the High Court under the 1st  proviso to S. 75 (1) of the Act.  That section reads :               "The debtor, any creditor, the receiver or any               other  person aggrieved by a decision come  to               or an order made in the exercise of insolvency               jurisdiction  by  a  Court  subordinate  to  a               District  Court  may appeal  to  the  District               Court,  and  the order of the  District  Court               upon such appeal shall be final :               Provided that the High Court, for the  purpose               of satisfying itself that an order made in any               appeal  decided  by  the  District  Court  was               according  to law, may call for the  case  and               pass  such  order with respect thereto  as  it               thinks fit :               Provided   further,  that  any   such   person               aggrieved by a decision of the District  Court               on  appeal  from a decision of  a  subordinate               Court  under section 4 may appeal to the  High               Court on any of the grounds mentioned in  sub-               section  (1)  of section 100 of  the  Code  of               Civil Procedure, 1908." According  to  Shri S. V. Gupte, learned,  Counsel  for  the appellants  the jurisdiction of a High Court under  the  1st proviso  to s. 75(1) is a very limited one, the  same  being not  more than that conferred on it by sub-s. (1) of S.  100 of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure.   In  support  of   his contention  he  invited our attention to the  scheme  of  S. 75(1)  of  the  Act.  He urged’ that sub-s.  (1)  of  S.  75 prescribes that the decision of the District Court in appeal is  final and the finality conferred on the decision of  the District Court is subject to a very limited scrutiny by  the High  Court. We were further told that the power  conferred on the High Court under the 1st proviso to S. 75(1) is  only a  revisional  power,  which power in  its  very  nature  is narrower  in compass than an appellate pow&.   According  to him the power conferred under the 1st proviso to s. 75(1) of the Act is co-extensive with that 701 given to the High Court under s. 100(1) (a) of the Code  ’of Civil Procedure. On  the other hand Mr. Naunit Lal, learned Counsel  for  the respondent  urged that the High Court under the 1st  proviso to s. 75(1) of the Act has an extensive power and that power is  very much wider than the power conferred on it under  s. 100(1) (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure; the power of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

High Court under the 1st proviso to s. 75 (1) of the Act  to call  for the case to satisfy itself that the order made  by the District Court was according to law and pass such  other order  in respect. thereto as it thinks fit includes  within itself  the right to examine whether the District Court  had taken  into  consideration  all the  material  evidence  and whether it had properly assessed that evidence. We are of the opinion that the extreme contentions  advanced on  either  side  cannot be  accepted.   Quite  clearly  the legislature  did not confer on the High Court under the  1st proviso  to s. 75 (1) of the Act an appellate power nor  did it confer on it a jurisdiction to reappreciate the  evidence on  record.  While exercising that power the High Court,  is by  and large bound by the findings of fact reached  by  the District Court.  If the legislature intended to confer power on  it to reexamine both questions of law and fact it  would have conveyed its intention by appropriate words as has been done  under  various other statutes.  A  wrong  decision  on facts  by a competent court is also a decision according  to law.  For these reasons we cannot accept the, contention  of Mr.  Naunit  Lai  that the power  conferred  under  the  1st proviso  to  s. 75 ( 1 ) of the Act enables it  to  de  novo examine the findings of fact reached by the District Court. A decision being "contrary to law" as provided in s.  100(1) (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure is not the same thing  as a decision being not "according to law" as prescribed in the 1st  proviso of s. 75(1) of the Act.  The latter  expression is wider in ambit than the former.  It is neither  desirable nor  possible  to  give  an  exhaustive  definition  of  the expression "according to law".  The power given to the  High Court  under  the  1st proviso to s. 75(1)  of  the  Act  is similar  to that given to it under s. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act.  Explaining the scope of the latter provision  Beaumont,  C.J. (as he then was) in Bell  &  Co., Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj (1) observed:               "The  object  of s. 25 is to enable  the  High               Court   to   see  that  there  has   been   no               miscarriage of justice, that the decision  was               given according to law.  The section does  not               enumerate the cases in which the Court may               (1) [1938]40 Bom.  L.R. 125.               L10Sup./69-10               702               interfere  in revision, as does s. 115 of  the               Code  of Civil Procedure, and I  certainly  do               not   propose   to  attempt   any   exhaustive               definition  of  the  circumstances  which  may               justify such interference; but instances which               readily  occur to the mind are cases in  which               the   Court  which  made  the  order  had   no               jurisdiction  or in which the Court has  based               its decision on evidence which should not have               been admitted, or cases where the unsuccessful               party has not been given a proper  opportunity               of  being  heard, or the burden of  proof  has               been placed on the wrong shoulders.   Wherever               the  Court  comes to the conclusion  that  the               unsuccessful party has not had a proper  trial               according   to   law,  then  the   Court   can               interfere.   But,  in my  opinion,  the  Court               ought  not  to  interfere  merely  because  it               thinks that possibly the Judge who, heard  the               case  may have arrived at a  conclusion  which               the High Court would not have arrived at."               The said statement of the law was accepted  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

             correct  by this Court in Hari Shankar v.  Rao               Girdhari Lal Chowdhury(1).  We think the  same               applies squarely to the 1st proviso to s. 7  5               (1) of the Act.               In support of his contention Mr. Gupte  placed               considerable reliance on the decision of  this               Court in Official Receiver, Kanpur and Anr. v.               Abdul  Shakur and Ors. (2) wherein this  Court               held  that the High Court in exercise  of  its               power  under the 1st proviso to s. 75  (1)  of               the Act is incompetent to disturb the findings               of  fact  reached by the  District  Court  and               further  the  question  whether  a   statutory               presumption  was rebutted by the rest  of  the               evidence on record was also a question of fact               which again was not open to be reviewed by the               High Court.  Shah, J. who spoke for the  Court               observed thus at p. 259.               "The  District Court inferred from  the  facts               found that the statutory presumption under  s.               118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been               weakened  and  the burden which lay  upon  the               insolvent  was discharged and it was not  open               to  the  High  Court  exercising  jurisdiction               under  s.  75(1)  proviso 1,  nor  even  under               proviso 2 of the Provincial Insolvency Act  to               set aside the judgment of the District  Court,               for  it  is  well settled  that  the  question               whether a statutory presumption is rebutted by               the  rest  of the evidence is  a  question  of               fact." It  may be remembered that Shah, J. was also a party to  the decision  in  Hari Shankar’s, case(2), We  see  no  conflict between (1) (1962) 1 Supp.  S.C.R. 933. (2) [1965] 1 S.C.R. 254. 703 the  two decisions.  The former decision enumerates some  of the  circumstances under which the High Court can  interfere while considering whether the decision under review was made according  to law.  All that is laid down in Abdul  Shakur’s case(1) is that the High Court is not competent to disturb a finding  of fact reached by the District Court even’  if  in reaching   that  finding  it  was  required  to  take   into consideration a statutory presumption. We shall now proceed to examine the facts of this case bear- ing in mind the principles set out above. We shall first set out the undisputed facts.  The respondent Ponnayya  Konar  was a well to do person.  He had  one  rice mill at Kivalur and another at Sirkali.  He also had  landed properties  in Sirkali and Tuticorin.  He was  having  money dealings  with the family of Sreenivasa Naicker  from  about the year 1925 Under the original of Exh.  B-1, a  registered deed  of Othi dated 28th September, 1925, he had borrowed  a sum  of  Rs.  30,000 from Rangappa Naicker,  the  father  of Srinivasa  Naicker.   On October 5, 1930 the said  deed  was renewed  by  the  execution of a  simple  mortgage  deed  by Ponnayya  Konar and his sons in favour of Rangappa  Naicker. Under the registered mortgage deed dated 13th January,  1942 (Exh.   B-4 is its copy), tile insolvents had borrowed  from Ayyappa  Naicker Rs. 20,000 out of which he discharged  some of  the debts due to Rangappa Naicker.  Ayyappa Naicker  was himself  a rich man.  Under the partition deed entered  into in his family on October 30, 1936 (Exh.  B-3) he got a  cash of  Rs. 52,000 and lands measuring 250 acres.  The debt  due

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

to  Ayyappa Naicker under the deed dated 13th  January  1942 was  discharged by payment of Rs. 5,000 and interest on  3rd April,  1948 and Rs. 15,000 and interest on the 28th  March, 1949, as can be seen from Exhs.  B-5 and B-6. The  case of the mortgagees is that when Exh.  A-1  and  A-2 were  executed  they  were  unaware of  the  fact  that  the insolvents had got into financial difficulties by then.  The learned  District  Judge  has accepted  this  plea  and  the learned  Judge of the High Court has not come to a  contrary conclusion. There  was  no relationship between the insolvents  and  the mortgagees.   In fact they belong to different  communities. The insolvents are Hindus and the mortgagees are Christians. They  also  live at different places.  The  insolvents  were residing at Sirkali and the mortgagees at Tuticorin, a place which is at a considerable distance from Sirkali. According  to the mortgagees the circumstances  under  which Exh.  A-1 and A-2 came to be executed are as follows (1)  [1965] 1 S.C.R. 254. 704 In  about  the beginning of 1950 Ponnayya  Konar  approached Srinivasa  Naicker  for  a loan of  Rs.  30,000.   Srinivasa Naicker told him that he and his son-in-law Ayyappa  Naicker together would lend him a sum of Rs. 25,000 on the  mortgage of  his properties at Tuticorin.  But as they did  not  have the entire sum of Rs. 25,000 in their hands at that time,  a sum  of Rs. 10,000 was paid to Ponnayya Konar on  April  28, 1950 and a promissory note was taken for that amount.  (Exh. A-11).   In the beginning of September, 1950 Ponnayya  Konar sent  his son Arulappan with the letter (Exh.  B-7)  to  get some  more money.  Accordingly another sum of Rs. 5,000  was paid  on September 8, 1950 and the pronote (Exh.  A-12)  was taken from Arulappan.  They agreed to pay the balance amount promised to be advanced at the time of the execution of  the mortgage deeds.  The mortgage deeds were got written up  and executed on 4th November 1950.  Therein it was recited  that they  were executed for cash consideration.  It was  thought that the mortgagees would be able to pay the balance  amount before  the  registration of the documents  on  November  6, 1950.   But by that time they were not able to get  together the entire amount that remained to be paid.  On the date  of the registration Ayyappa Naicker paid to the mortgagors only a  sum  of  Rs. 4,500 another sum of Rs.  500  was  adjusted towards the interest due on the sum of Rs. 15,000 previously advanced in April and September.  The remaining sum of  Rs. 5,000 was paid in two instalments, a sum of Rs. 1700 through Amirthan,  the 3rd son of Ponnayya Konar on January 7,  1951 and the remaining sum of Rs. 33,00 again through Amirthan on February 10, 1951. In  the  insolvency proceedings on the  application  of  the petitioning creditor, a commissioner to search the house  of the  insolvents and seize their books of account  and  other relevant   records   was  appointed.    After   search   the Commissioner seized from the house of the insolvents several account books (ledgers as well as day books) as well as  A- 1 1 and A- 1 2 which were found punched and defaced.   Exhs. A-11,  A-12 as well as several of the entries in the  ledger and day books were marked by consent in the proceedings from which these appeals have arisen.  Hence their genuineness is not open to question. It is most unlikely that those documents were got up by  the insolvents  and  kept in their house, depending on  the  off chance  of  a court commissioner searching their  house  and seizing  them,  so  that they  may  serve  as  corroborating evidence in support of the impugned mortgages.  If Exh.   A-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

11 and A-12 as well as the entries in the account books were intended  to support the claim tinder Exhs.  A-1  and  A-2, the  most  natural  course would have been to  draw  up  the mortgage deeds in such a way as to 705 take assistance from them.  In that case the mortgage  deeds would  not  have recited that they were  executed  for  cash consideration.  Further Exhs.  A-11 and A-12 would have been left in the possession of the mortgagees.  We are  convinced that   the  version  put  forward  by  the   mortgagees   is substantially  true.   The original  agreement  between  the parties  was to take mortgages of the  Tuticorin  properties for cash consideration.  ’The intermediate steps taken  were necessitated  by the fact that mortgagees were not  able  to get  together  in  one,  lump  the  required  amount.    The promissory notes Exhs.  A-11 and A-12 were taken as stop gap arrangements.   The  recitals in the mortgage  deeds  accord with  the original agreement between the parties.  That  was likely to be the reason why the promissory notes Exh.   A-11 and  A-12 were returned to the parties.  The entries in  the account books of the insolvents reflect the transactions  as they took place.  If they were bogus entries made to support Exhs.   A-1 and A-2, a receipt of Rs. 25,000 in cash on  4th November  1950 would have been shown therein.   The  learned District Judge correctly thought that the account entries in question had a great deal of intrinsic value.  On the  other hand  the insolvency court and the High Court  unnecessarily allowed   themselves  to  be  influenced  by  the   apparent contradiction  appearing between the recitals in Exhs.   A-1 and  A-2  and  those in Exhs.  A-11, A-12  and  the  account entries. One other circumstance which had weighed with the High Court in holding that Exhs.  A-1 and A-2 do not represent  genuine transactions is that in their pleadings the mortgagees  have struck  to their case that cash consideration  passed  under Exh.   A-1  and  A-2  and  this  the  Court  thought  was  a deliberately  false  plea.  The learned District  Judge  had carefully  considered this circumstance but was  of  opinion that the same was of no consequence.  We think that the High Court  had attached undue importance to  that  circumstance. The  issue before the parties at the time of  the  pleadings was  whether  the mortgages in question  were  supported  by consideration or not and not the manner in which that consi- deration  was  paid.   In their  plea  the  mortgagees  were merely  adhering to the tenor of the mortgage  deeds.   From the facts stated earlier, it is clear that the mortgagees at all  stages proceeded on the basis that Exhs.  A-1  and  A-2 were executed for cash consideration, the other steps  taken by them being merely incidental. The  last and by far the most important  circumstances  that appears to have influenced the High Court was the failure of the  mortgagees  to  produce  their  account  books.    This circumstance was carefully considered by the District Judge. He  held  that the adverse,- inference that could  be  drawn from  that circumstance was rebutted by the  other  evidence available  in the case.  It was open to him to do  so.   His finding on this point is also a finding 706 of fact and by no means a wholly unreasonable finding.   The High Court could not have interfered with the same.  From  the  above  discussion  it  follows  that   generally speaking  we  shall  come to the  details  of  consideration presently-the findings of the District Court as regards  the payment  of  consideration  under  Exh.   A-1  and  A-2  are findings  of facts and they were not open to review  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

High Court. This takes us to the various items of consideration said  to have passed under Exhs.  A-1 and A-2 and the proof  thereof. The  District Court has held that the  entire  consideration mentioned in those documents has passed.  We have now to see whether  its  finding  in respect of the  various  items  of consideration is supported by legal evidence.  The challenge to  the  payment of consideration under Exhs.  A-1  and  A-2 made by the petitioning creditor includes a challenge to the passing  of the various items of consideration said to  have passed.   Ordinarily the burden of proving that  a  document impeached  under  s.  53  of the Act  is  not  supported  by consideration  is on the party who challenges its  validity. That is so because the party who stands by the document  can take advantage of the admission made by the insolvent in the document  in  question.,  But in this  case  the  mortgagees themselves do not stand by the recitals in the documents  as regards   the  manner  in  which  consideration  was   paid. Therefore   it  is  for  them  to  prove  the   passing   of consideration.   Hence  we  have to see how  far  they  have succeeded in proving the same. We shall first take up Exh.  A-2, the mortgage deed executed in  favour  of  Srinivasa  Naicker.  It  is  said  that  the consideration  payable under that mortgage was paid  in  the following manner: Rs. 5,000 under promissory note Exh.  A-11; Rs. 1,700 paid in cash on 7-1-1951 and Rs. 3,300 also paid in cash on 10-2-1951; The receipt of the aforementioned sums is entered in the day book and edger  of the insolvents.  The relevant entries amount to an admission on the part of the insolvents of having received the amounts mentioned   therein.    We  have  earlier   considered   the authenticity  of those account books.  The evidence  of  the mortgagees  as  regards  the  payment  of  consideration  is strongly  corroborated  by the entries  in  the  insolvents’ account books.  It was open to the learned District Judge to rely on them.  Hence his finding as regards the validity of- the mortgage under Exh.  A-2 must be held to be final. So far as the consideration for Exh.  A-1 is concerned it is said to have been made up of-- (i)  a sum of Rs, 10,000 advanced under Exh.  A-11; 707 (ii) Rs. 500 the interest due under Exh.  A- 11   and A-12;                             and (iii) Rs. 4,500 paid on 6-11-1950. The  receipts of the various sums mentioned above  excepting the sum of Rs. 4,500 said to have been paid on 6th  November 1950,  are  entered in the day book and the  ledger  of  the insolvents.  Hence to that extent the finding of the learned District  Judge is unassailable.  So far as the  payment  of Rs.  4,500  said to have been made on November  6,  1950  is concerned  no  corresponding entry in the day  book  or  the ledger had been proved. This important  circumstance was not noticed by the learned District Judge.  He proceeded on  the basis that the account entries support  the payment of  that item  as well.  The evidence of Ayyappa Naicker  as  regards that  payment  is necessarily interested.   The  only  other evidence on that point is that of P.W. 2, the Registrar  who registered  Exhs.   A-1 and A-2.  He is a  relation  of  the insolvents.   He did not endorse that payment in Exh.   A-1, though  he  knew  that he was required to do  so  under  the rules.   We are also surprised how he could have  remembered that  fact  after several years.  Had the  learned  District Judge’s  attention been drawn to the fact that there  is  no documentary evidence in proof of the payment of that item it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

is  highly doubtful whether he would have held in favour  of the  mortgagee as regards the payment of that  item.   After going  through the evidence bearing on the point we are  not satisfied that the payment of that amount is  satisfactorily proved. In  the result Civil Appeal No. 846 of 1963 is  allowed  and the  judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside  and that  of the District Court restored.  Civil Appeal No.  845 is allowed in part i.e. the mortgage Exh.  A-1 is held to be valid to the extent of Rs. 10,500 and interest thereon.   In the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to  bear their own costs in all the courts. R.K.P.S,             C.A. 845/63 allowed in part.                      C.A. 845/63 allowed in part. 708