https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278908 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. en-us Fri, 16 Aug 1929 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:10:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278908 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Aug 1929 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278908