TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Privy Council affirms High Court decision on mortgage dispute burden of proof.</h1> <h3>Thakur Bhagwan Singh and Ors. Versus Bishambar Nath (minor) and Ors.</h3> The Privy Council upheld the High Court's decision in a mortgage dispute case, emphasizing the burden of proof on the defendants regarding consideration. ... - Issues:- Appeal against judgment of High Court of Allahabad regarding a mortgage dispute.Analysis:1. The case involved an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad regarding a mortgage dispute. The appellants sought to recover a principal sum secured by a mortgage dated 17th August 1924. The original mortgage dated back to 1892 and was renewed multiple times. The main issue argued was whether the bond in question was executed for consideration and binding on the defendants. The defendants claimed that the original mortgage was not made for legal necessity but for immoral purposes, questioning the validity of the promissory notes and the payment of certain sums. The Subordinate Judge found against the defendants on legal necessity but held that there was a failure of consideration for certain sums. The High Court, however, granted a decree for the full amount claimed, leading to the appeal.2. The High Court and the Subordinate Judge had differing views on the burden of proof regarding consideration in the mortgage. The High Court stated that the burden was on the defendants to show that consideration had passed, which they failed to do. However, the Privy Council clarified that the burden of proof on consideration lies on the defendants, not the plaintiffs. The only evidence against the consideration was from a witness whose credibility was questioned. The court found no substantial evidence to support the defendants' claim of lack of consideration, and the evidence presented by the plaintiffs was deemed overwhelming.3. An application for rehearing was made by one of the appellants, a minor during the suit, alleging negligence on the part of the guardian in presenting the case. The application was based on vague grounds, such as failure to procure evidence for specific claims and not obtaining certain documents. The court dismissed the application, stating that the grounds were unsubstantial and lacked specificity. The court advised that the appeal and the petition for rehearing should be dismissed, with costs to be paid by the appellants to the respondents.In conclusion, the Privy Council upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the burden of proof on the defendants regarding consideration in the mortgage. The lack of substantial evidence from the defendants and the overwhelming evidence presented by the plaintiffs led to the dismissal of the appeal and the petition for rehearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
