JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned District Judge, 24-Par-ganas, in a proceeding started by a Receiver in Insolvency for annulling two mortgages under sec. 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, on the ground that the mortgages in question were paper transactions, that there was no passing of consideration, and that they were fraudulent transactions entered into with the object of keeping the insolvent's property beyond the reach of his creditors, and defraud them of their legitimate claims. The Judge in the Court below found in favour of the Receiver on all the points arising for consideration in the case, regard being had to the case of the respective parties before the Court, the Receiver and the two mortgagees. On an exhaustive review of the evidence in the case, documentary and oral, it was held by the District Judge that the Receiver had established his case before the Court. The conclusion arrived at by the Court below was that the two mortgages in question, " were mere papers " executed with the idea of giving the insolvent a lever against the creditors, and that as such they were voidable under sec. 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act as against the Official Receiver. Hence this appeal by the mortgagees. 2. The learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the Appellants, did not and could not possibly challenge the conclusions arrived at on evidence in the case, as the evidence which has been considered by us leads to the only conclusion arrived by the Judge in the Court below. 3. A question was raised in support of the appeal relating to the procedure followed at the trial before the Court below. Some formal evidence was only given by the Receiver in support of his case, and the mortgagees were called upon to establish a case of bona fides so far as the mortgages in their favour were concerned. After the conclusion of the evidence given by the mortgagees the Receiver was allowed to give evidence which he should have given at the inception: the burden of proof being on him to establish that the transactions challenged by him were voidable as against him on grounds stated in sec. 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. After the conclusion of the evidence given by the mortgagees the Receiver was allowed to give evidence which he should have given at the inception: the burden of proof being on him to establish that the transactions challenged by him were voidable as against him on grounds stated in sec. 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. As has been observed by the Judge in the Court below, the case proceeded on the assumption that the onus of proving good faith and valuable consideration lay on the mortgagees opposite parties in the application made by the Receiver under sec. 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. This reversal of the ordinary procedure to be followed in cases of the present description, was due to error for which the Judge against whose decision this appeal was directed, was not responsible, as his predecessor-in-office allowed a wrong procedure, in the matter of giving evidence, to be followed. In spite of the erroneous and unjustifiable course adopted in taking evidence in the case before us, we are not satisfied on the materials on record, and on the decision of the Court below, that any case of prejudice was made out by reversal of procedure in taking evidence. The decision of the Judge below, so far as it goes against the mortgagees, was based on the entire evidence placed before the Court which could not possibly be taken to have established any case on which it could be held that there was any passing of consideration so far as the two transactions before the Court were concerned. There can be no question that any passing of consideration or any bond fides in the matter of execution of mortgages has not been established on evidence on which they could be upheld by a Court. The conclusion that the mortgages were voidable against the Receiver, must be upheld and as has been mentioned already, that conclusion has not been challenged in this appeal. 4. The main question raised in the appeal related to the position that the mortgage bonds sought to be annulled were executed by the insolvent with the intention that the mortgagees should pay off the creditors, and that they should be enforced as contracts in which consideration had not in fact been fully paid. 4. The main question raised in the appeal related to the position that the mortgage bonds sought to be annulled were executed by the insolvent with the intention that the mortgagees should pay off the creditors, and that they should be enforced as contracts in which consideration had not in fact been fully paid. This is a position which appears to have been suggested in the Court below, and on which definite stand was taken in this Court but there could be no justification for the same. The mortgagees had specifically and definitely asserted that there was passing of full consideration for the mortgages executed by the insolvent, they were bond fide transactions for valuable consideration, and were valid and operative against the Receiver. As it has been pointed out by the Judge in the Court below, the mortgagees had chosen to fight the case on the basis that they had actually paid the consideration money mentioned in the two mortgages. If they had acted in good faith, there were only two courses open to the mortgagees, either to state clearly that they had paid the money or that they were willing to pay it. The mortgagees did neither of these two things. 5. On the facts of the case, regard being had to the findings arrived at by the Judge in the Court below from which we see no reason to differ, and seeing that the Appellants could not at the last stage of the case be permitted to take an inconsistent position with reference to the transactions which were sought to be impeached by the Receiver in insolvency, the decision of the Court below must be affirmed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs: the hearing-fee in this Court is assessed at five gold mohurs.