Judgement Appeals from decrees of the above Court (July 31, 1899) varying decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Sitapur (Oct. 27, 1898). The suits were instituted for the cancellation of two deeds of mortgage, one for Rs. 14,400 and the other for Rs. 8000, executed on January 13, 1892, by Fateh Singh, the father of the appellant, in favour of the respondent, Muhammad Ali Beg. The cancellation was sought on the ground that Fateh Singh, at the time of executing the said mortgages, was insane, or at any rate of " weak intellect," and undue advantage had been taken of him. The respondent denied that Fateh Singh was insane or of weak intellect, and that any fraud or undue influence had been resorted to in connection with the execution of either deed. The Subordinate Judge found on the evidence adduced that " Fateh Singh was not insane, but he was Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. 235 ( 1903- 1904) Durga Bakhsh Singh V. Mirza Muhammad Ali Beg 111 quite helpless; he was not independent and was weak-minded." As to the mortgage deed for Rs. 8000, he was of opinion " there is no doubt as to the genuineness of this mortgage deed, for the money borrowed from the defendant was paid towards the debts due to the other creditors." As regards the deed for Rs. 14,400, he found that " Rs. 8000 is correct and legal, and the balance is illegal and capable of cancellation, and the mortgage deed for Rs. 8000 is not cancellable." The appellate Court reviewed the evidence adduced by the appellant to establish " that at the time of the execution of the deeds Fateh Singh was not of sound mind within the meaning of s. 12, Indian Contract Act, 1872 " ; they said the Subordinate Judge clearly did not believe the evidence, and he was quite right in not believing it. " It is improbable that Fateh Singh would suddenly fall into the mental condition described by plaintiffs witnesses .... The Subordinate Judge does not state from what facts he draws the inference that Fateh Singh was weak-minded, nor does he say what he means by Fateh Singh being weak-minded. " It is improbable that Fateh Singh would suddenly fall into the mental condition described by plaintiffs witnesses .... The Subordinate Judge does not state from what facts he draws the inference that Fateh Singh was weak-minded, nor does he say what he means by Fateh Singh being weak-minded. If the evidence produced by the plaintiff shewing that Fateh Singh was insane is incredible, there seems to me to be no evidence at all which can be taken to prove that Fateh Singh was otherwise of unsound mind." They dealt with the mortgage deed for Rs. 14,400, and held that the " Subordinate Judge was wrong in decreeing the plaintiffs suit as regards the balance of Rs. 14,400, viz., Rs. 6400." They affirmed the finding of the lower Court with regard to the other mortgage, and dismissed the suits. De Gruyther, for the appellant, contended that it was proved that Fateh Singh was insane at the date of the deeds, and incapable of understanding the nature of the transaction ; and that the mortgages were obtained by fraud. The onus of shewing that the transactions were bona fide was on the respondent, and had not been discharged by him either in whole or in part. The deeds ought to be cancelled. Bonnerjee, for the respondent, relied on concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the mortgagor was not insane, and that the appellant was not entitled to relief as regards the deed for Rs. 8000, or as regards the other to the extent of Rs. 8000. The Subordinate Judge was wrong in cancelling the deed as regards the balance of Rs. 6400. No evidence was adduced of mental incapacity short of the total insanity, which was not established; it was not shewn that the mortgagors mind was affected by age, illness, or mental or bodily distress. Both suits failed in their entirety. De Gruyther, replied. July 29. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD ROBERTSON. The questions raised by these appeals arose in two suits, now consolidated, brought for the cancellation of two mortgage deeds granted to the respondent by Fateh Singh, the appellants father, on January 13, 1892. The ground of action was the same in each case, namely, that Fateh was insane and that the deeds were obtained by fraud. The questions raised by these appeals arose in two suits, now consolidated, brought for the cancellation of two mortgage deeds granted to the respondent by Fateh Singh, the appellants father, on January 13, 1892. The ground of action was the same in each case, namely, that Fateh was insane and that the deeds were obtained by fraud. At the same time it is necessary to bear in mind that the consideration of the mortgages was different, inasmuch as the one for Rs. 8000 was granted for a fresh advance of cash paid down, while that for Rs. 14,400 was granted as the result of a long series of former mortgages and decrees. The Subordinate Judge, on October 27, 1898, held that the smaller mortgage could not be cancelled. As regards the larger one, he held it good to the extent of Rs. 8000, and bad as regards the balance of Rs. 6400. The Judicial Commissioners of Oudh, on July 31, 1899, held that the appellant had failed to establish his case in either suit, and dismissed both. The essential weakness of the appellants position is that both Courts have held Fateh not to have been Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. 235 ( 1903- 1904) Durga Bakhsh Singh V. Mirza Muhammad Ali Beg 112 insane, and the grounds upon which the Subordinate Judge gave him a limited decree in the Rs. 14,400 suit are entirely unsupported by evidence. The theory of the Subordinate Judge was that, while Fateh was not insane, he was helpless and weak-minded, and the respondent defrauded him. Neither of these propositions is substantiated. All the testimony which goes to mental unsoundness in Fateh goes to insanity in its crudest and most palpable form, and there is no case of helplessness or weakness. Fateh was blind, and had been so for fifteen years. But the picture drawn of him by the appellants witnesses is not of a helpless old man, but of a raving old man. Several witnesses so describe him, and, having done so, leave their assertion unsupported by detail or circumstance. This account of Fateh found no credence in either Court, and had been contradicted by adequate and responsible testimony. Now the case constructed by the Subordinate Judge and substituted for that advanced by the appellant is the case of a helpless or facile mortgagor, operated on by a fraudulent mortgagee. This account of Fateh found no credence in either Court, and had been contradicted by adequate and responsible testimony. Now the case constructed by the Subordinate Judge and substituted for that advanced by the appellant is the case of a helpless or facile mortgagor, operated on by a fraudulent mortgagee. But then it is not legitimate to commute an insufficient case of insanity into a complete case of weakness, when the type of insanity connoted in the evidence is something quite different; and, second, the appellant has entirely failed to make out any case of fraud at all. As regards the mortgage for Rs. 8000, the materials were discouraging, this being a fresh advance of cash ; and the mere circumstance that the money, or some part of it, was paid by Fateh to persons connected with the respondent comes to nothing, as this has not been followed up by shewing those payments to have been made sine causa. As regards the mortgage for Rs. 14,400, the antecedent obligations of Fateh under old mortgages and decrees make it at least probable that he was really due that or some similar sum, the amount of which had been under negotiation. But it was for the appellant to bring this to a point by proving the state of the account; and on the face of the record this was one of the conditions of his succeeding. It is impossible to supplant this sort of case by a conjectural theory about the machinations of two taluqdars, such as has been supplied by the Subordinate Judge. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeals ought to be dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the appeals.