AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals are argued on the ground that the lower Court should either have set aside the mortgage Exhibit I or should at least have allowed
the proof of the present appellant, the alienee, in respect of the amount secured by that document, as a simple debt.
The first suggestion is that the Official Receiver''s petition was out of time with reference to Article 181, Schedule I of the Limitation Act. A
similar contention was rejected in Duriyya Solagyan v. Venkatarama Naiker (1921) 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 Exhibit I was less than two years, it was for the alienee to prove his case.
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.