C.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of money by the sale of the mortgaged property.
(2.) THE suit is based on a registered mortgage deed dated 21 -4 -1955. The mortgagor is the debtor Bastu Singh. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Ramsingh, Hanuman Singh and Ramdeo also signed the mortgage deed as sureties. The orginal mortgage deed has been placed on the record and marked Ex. 1. It is mentioned therein that if the amount of mortgage including all other claims of the mortgagee are not realised by the sale of the mortgaged property, the mortgagor as well as defendants Nos. 2 to 4 would be liable to pay the balance, if any. The suit was decreed against the mortgagor Bastu Singh as a simple money debt. The mortgaged property was sold through the Court after attachment. Admittedly some amount has still remained due to the mortgagee after the sale proceeds had been paid to him. Both the Courts dismissed the plaintiff's suit against defendants Nos. 2 to 4 on the ground that the execution of the mortgage deed by them was not proved. Consequently the plaintiff has come in second appeal to this Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has urged that in view of Section 60(2) of the Indian Registration Act (1908) the mortgage deed should be presumed to have been executed by defendants Nos. 2 to 4. His contention is that the burden of issue No. 5 which pertains to the execution of the mortgage deed by the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 should not have been placed on the plaintiff. In the second place he has argued that both on account of certificate of registration as well as other circumstances appearing on the record, the lower Courts ought to have held that the execution of the mortgage deed by the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 was fully proved.;