Court rules burden of proof on appellants to prove alleged sale extinguished mortgage. Evidence insufficient. Sale a question of fact. Appeal dismissed.

The High Court, concurring with the appellate court, held that the burden was on the appellants to prove the alleged sale had extinguished the mortgage. The court found the evidence presented insufficient to discharge this burden, emphasizing that the onus was not met by the appellants. The Privy Council determined that the question of whether a sale had occurred was a question of fact. Despite statutory presumptions, the entries relied upon by the appellants were deemed incorrect, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs.

---

---

Issues:
Interpretation of evidence regarding alleged sale of mortgaged premises.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the alleged sale of mortgaged premises by the original mortgagors to the appellants. The appellants claimed that the sale was oral and supported by a receipt showing payment. However, the trial and appellate courts found the receipt unproven. The appellants also relied on mutation records, which were destroyed in riots, and entries in the Record-of-Rights under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The appellate court held that the burden was on the appellants to prove the sale had extinguished the mortgage, and that the evidence presented was insufficient to discharge this burden. The High Court concurred with this view, emphasizing that the onus was not met by the appellants.

The key legal issue was whether the decision regarding the sale was a question of fact or law. The appellants argued that the inference drawn from the evidence was a question of law, while the respondents contended it was a question of fact. Reference was made to Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, which governs the jurisdiction for second appeals based on erroneous findings of fact. The judgment highlighted established legal principles that distinguish between questions of law and fact, emphasizing that the determination of whether a fact has been proven is inherently a question of fact. The judgment cited precedents to support this distinction and underscored that the legal effect of a proved fact is a question of law, but the determination of whether a fact has been proven is a factual inquiry.

Ultimately, the Privy Council concluded that the question of whether a sale had occurred was a question of fact. Both parties presented evidence, but the appellate court found many entries relied upon by the appellants to be incorrect, despite statutory presumptions. These entries were viewed as evidence to prove the sale, and their value was assessed in relation to the central issue of the sale itself. The Privy Council upheld the appellate court's finding that no sale had been proven, deeming the High Court's judgment incorrect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the decision was to be communicated to the monarch accordingly.

---