G RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. VSAMA RAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued on a mortgage-bond executed in his favour by the 1 defendant. The 1 defendant confessed execution and pleaded that of the consideration of Rs. 400, Rs. 7-4-0 was paid. The District Munsif accepted this plea, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge has reversed his judgment and decreed the plaintiff's claim in full. The 1 defendant prefers this second appeal.

(2.) On the question of consideration, I cannot accept the view that the Sub-ordinate Judge in coming to his conclusion, has overlooked such obvious parts of the evidence as have been referred to by the District Munsif in para. 15 of his judgment, such for instance as the youthfulness and profligacy of the mortgager, 1 defendant, and the astuteness of the plaintiff. It appears to me that he has weighed the probabilities of this part of the case, and his finding being one of fact I cannot interfere in it.

(3.) The appellant, however, raises the question whether the mortgage-deed was duly attested. No issue was framed on this point, but the District Munsif, after considering the evidence of three reputed attestors, has given a finding that the deed has not been proved as a mortgage as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Subordinate Judge after remarking that this point had not been raised by the 1 defendant and there was no issue upon it, adds the evidence does not, in my opinion, justify the finding that Ex. A was not duly executed and attested.