SRI RAM Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit upon a mortgage made on July 14th, 1873. The plaintiff was the heir of one Asa Ram, who purchased the rights of the original mortgagees. The suit was resisted by certain persons who were in possession of the property. The original mortgagors were made parties but did not defend the suit. They lost all interest in the property long ago.

(2.) The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that the original mortgage-deed had been lost and they tendered a registration office copy in evidence. The Munsif decreed the claim holding that the loss of the original deed had been proved. On appeal, the Additional Judge held that the evidence adduced to prove the loss of the deed was not admissible but he was of opinion that on the pleadings, it was for the defendants to prove that the mortgage had been paid off, and as they had failed to do that, the decree of the first Court was correct.

(3.) The defendants who resisted the suit have appealed to this Court and on their behalf it is contended that as the plaintiff had not proved the loss of the original deed, he was not entitled to sue upon a copy of it and that the burden of proof lay entirely on the plaintiff. On behalf of the plaintiffs respondent, it has bean urged that the evidence adduced to prove the loss of the original-deed was admissible and was sufficient for the purpose, that even if the loss of the deed had not been proved, a copy of it was admissible under Clauses (b) and (f) of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, and that upon the pleadings it was for the defendants to prove that the mortgage had been paid off.