Sir John Wallis. - In this case either the plaintiffs are suing to recover a mortgage debt already discharged, or the defendants are setting up a false case of discharge, relying on the fact that the mortgage-deed has come into their posession and purports to bear an endorsement of discharge by the plaintiffs' father, who had admittedly lent money to de fendant 1 and taken a mortgage bond in the name of his son, plaintiff 2. The Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly found, on a full consideration of the evidence that the plaintiffs' case was true and the defence totally false, while the learned Judges of the High Court held that the possession of the document bear ing an endorsement of discharge threw heavily on the plaintiffs the onus of proving that the document was stolen from them and the endorsement forged, and that they had failed to discharge it. The respondents were not represented at the hearing of this appeal, and their Lord ships unfortunately have not had the advantage of hearing counsel on their behalf. They have, however, very care fully considered the evidence, and have come to the conclusion that the Subordi nate Judge was right in finding in favour of the plaintiffs. On the 1st August 1916, defendant 1, (who was the father of defendants 2 and 3), for the consideration reci ted in the deed executed a mort gage bond in favour of the plaintiff 2, making the mortgage debt repayable on or before the 31st August 1918. At the same time he deposited with the plaintiffs the title-deeds of the mortgaged property, which are still in possession of the plaintiffs, and the fact that he did not get them back at the time of the alleged discharge when, his case is, the document itself was returned to him, in their Lord ships' opinion, considerably weakens the presumption in his favour arising from the possession of the mortgage document. Defendant, no doubt, endeavoured to explain this on the ground that the plaintiffs' father insisted on retaining them until payment of a promissory note for Rs. 500, by which according to the endorsement alleged to be forged, the balance of the mortgage debt was dis charged. He also endeavoured unsuccess fully to show that some of the deeds had been returned to him. 500, by which according to the endorsement alleged to be forged, the balance of the mortgage debt was dis charged. He also endeavoured unsuccess fully to show that some of the deeds had been returned to him. Apart, however, from the question of onus, their Lord ships are satisfied that the defendants' story of discharge is false. In coming to this conclusion they have necessarily dis regarded the finding of the learned Sub ordinate Judge, based on comparisons of handwriting, that the Tamil endorsement of discharge on the mortgage-deed was not in the handwriting of the plaintiffs' father, inasmuch as the learned Judges of the High Court do not accept this conclu sion, and the question is one as to which necessarily their Lordships are not in a position to form any opinion of their own. (The judgment then discussed the evidence and concluded.) They agree with the finding of the learned Subordi nate Judge that the case of discharge set up by the defendants is false, and they will accordingly humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal be allowed and the suit decreed with costs in the Courts below and before this Board. Appeal allowed. .