PITTA RAMASWAMIAH Vs. SUBRAMANIA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are argued on the ground that the lower Court should either have set aside the mortgage Ex. I or should at least have allowed the proof o? the present appellant, the alienee, in respect of the amount secured by that document, as a simple debt.

(2.) The first suggestion is that the Official Receiver's petition was out of time with reference to Art. 181, Schedule I of the Limitation Act. A similar contention was rejected in Duraiyya Solagyan V/s. Venkatrama Naiker 60 Ind. Cas. 123 : 12 L.W. 535, a decision with which we entirely agree. Next, it is said that the burden of proof should have been placed on the Official Receiver. But, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the interval between the insolvency petition and Ex. I, was less than two years, it was for the alienee to prove his case.

(3.) The lower Court has dealt fully with the merits. We need add only that the alienee did not give evidence. The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs to include only one Vakil's fee.