Mortgage bond recitals can shift the burden of proof to defendants claiming through the mortgagor, absent suspicious circumstances.

Proof of execution of a mortgage bond containing a recital that consideration was received ordinarily raises a prima facie presumption of the truth of that recital. A person claiming through the mortgagor does not obtain a better position merely because he was not an original party to the transaction. In the absence of special suspicious circumstances, the plaintiff is not required to prove independent evidence of every item of consideration; the document itself shifts the burden to the defendants to rebut the presumption. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not displace this principle in favour of those stepping into the mortgagor's shoes.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a suit on a mortgage bond challenged by persons claiming through the mortgagor, proof of execution and the recitals of consideration in the bond constitute a prima facie case sufficient to shift the burden to the defendants, absent suspicious circumstances.

Analysis: The proof of execution of a mortgage bond containing recitals that consideration was received ordinarily raises a prima facie presumption of the truth of those recitals. A transferee or representative of the mortgagor does not stand in a better position merely because he was not an original party to the transaction. The burden does not remain fixed on the plaintiff to produce independent proof of each item of consideration in every case. Where no special suspicious circumstances are shown in the plaintiff's evidence, the defendants who claim under the mortgagor must rebut the presumption arising from the document. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not displace this principle in favour of persons stepping into the mortgagor's shoes.

Conclusion: The recital in the proved mortgage bond was sufficient to shift the onus to the defendants, and they failed to rebut it.

---