JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is a Plaintiffs' appeal in a suit based on a mortgage. The mortgage was executed for a sum of Rs. 700 on 1-5-1938. Ved Prakash was one of the executants and after his death Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are his heirs. Defendants Nos. 3 and 6 had purchased the mortgage property at a court sale. In execution of the simple money decree the mortgage was executed in favour of one Hazari Lal and the present Plaintiffs who are the nephews of Hazari Lal are his heirs. Hazari Lal had left neither a male issue nor a widow. 2. The suit was mainly contested by Defendants Nos. 5 and 6, the auction purchasers, and the ground on which it was challenged was that the mortgage had not been validly executed and there was no consideration for the mortgage and the document was Farzi. 3. Both the courts have held that so far as the mortgage was concerned, it was executed by the executants but they have differed on the question of consideration. The first court came to the conclusion that the document was executed for consideration. But the lower appellate court had come to a finding that the document was not for consideration. Ordinarily this would have been a finding of fact binding upon me in a second appeal. But this finding had been arrived at from a wholly wrong approach from the point of view of burden of proof. The first court had rightly placed the burden of proving the want of consideration on the Defendants but the lower appellate court had held otherwise. It has remarked: It was for the Plaintiffs to prove the consideration of the mortgage deed but the lower court seems to have shifted the burden on the auction purchasers to prove that the mortgage was without consideration. This was again a wrong method leading to a wrong conclusion. The lower court seems to have considered only the defence evidence on this question although in my opinion it was exclusively the job of the Plaintiffs to prove that the mortgage deed was executed for consideration mentioned in it. The mere fact that a certain figure is given out in a deed is not a proof that that sum was really advanced. 4. The mere fact that a certain figure is given out in a deed is not a proof that that sum was really advanced. 4. For the proposition of law that the burden had wrongly been placed learned Counsel for the Appellants has relied on the case of Babu v. Sita Ram and Drig Pal Singh ILR 1914 36 All. 478 wherein a Bench consisting of Sir Henry Richards Knight, C.J. and Mr. Justice Tudball held as follows: Where a mortgage deed is proved to have been executed and the document contains an acknowledgment of the receipt of the consideration, this is strong prima facie evidence that the consideration has been actually received and is evidence not only against the mortgagors but also against persons claiming under them subsequent to the date of the mortgage. The mere fact that a court was not satisfied with the evidence, which the Plaintiff adduced in addition to the acknowledgment would not absolve the Defendants from producing evidence that, notwithstanding the acknowledgment in the body of the deed, there was no consideration in fact. 5. The second authority on which reliance was placed is the case of Narain Das v. Dilawar ILR 41 All. 250 where Sri Henry Richards, C.J. and Justice Banerji have approved the decision in the former case as also that of 10 ALJ 390. This was a case in which the auction purchaser was challenging the consideration as in the present case and the facts of this case are very similar to the one in the present case. Their Lordships held: Where execution of a mortgage deed has been proved as required by law, an acknowledgment contained therein of receipt of consideration is evidence not only as against the mortgagor but also as against a purchaser from the mortgagor or an auction purchaser at a sale held in execution of a decree on the mortgage, although the value of the acknowledgment as evidence may vary, and possibly it may be more weighty as against a purchaser by private contract than against an auction purchaser; but it is clearly evidence as against both. Babbu v. Sita Ram ILR 1914 36 All. 478 and Naval Kumar v. Bakitawar Singh 1912 (10) ALJ 390. 6. Babbu v. Sita Ram ILR 1914 36 All. 478 and Naval Kumar v. Bakitawar Singh 1912 (10) ALJ 390. 6. A full bench decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of AIR 1925 471 (Lahore) has also on a consideration of several authorities of different courts including the authority reported in ILR 36 All. 478 held: Where an unregistered document, the execution of which is admitted or proved, contains an admission or recital of the payment of the consideration, the onus lies on the person executing the document to prove that he did not receive the consideration. There is no valid reason in principle for drawing a distinction between an admission in a registered deed and that contained in an unregistered document, in so far as the question of onus probandi is concerned. 7. This case was of an unregistered document and even in that case their Lordships have applied that principle. The decision of that case will apply equally to the facts of this case. 8. Learned Counsel for the Respondents relied on the case of Ram Sarup Saha v. Karam Ullah Khan AIR 1914 All. 158(1) and AIR 1929 184 (Privy Council) a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council. These cases relate to the consideration in a pre-emption suit. Ordinarily the vendee is interested in swelling the prices in order to save the property from pre-emption and the considerations which apply in the case of pre-emption suits would not apply in the case of ordinary mortgage suits. I respectfully agree with the decision in Narain Das v. Dilawar ILR 41 All. 250. The appellate court, though it has accused the trial court for having arrived at a wrong conclusion by wrong method, was really itself guilty of arriving at a finding by wrong method. The approach should have been, that the burden of proof lay on the Defendants to prove want of consideration. It is open to the court while coming to that conclusion to rely on any of the circumstances that may be available from the evidence but it is always to be kept in mind that the burden of proof was on the Defendants. I do not wish to express any opinion on merits of the case because I am remanding the case to the court below for final disposal. I do not wish to express any opinion on merits of the case because I am remanding the case to the court below for final disposal. It will be open to the appellate court to arrive at any finding on the evidence produced by the parties keeping in view that the burden initially lay on the Defendants. The findings on every issues need not be gone into. In case the court comes to the finding that no consideration passed the suit shall be dismissed, but if it comes to the conclusion that it has not been so established, the suit of the Plaintiffs shall stand decreed. 9. With these directions I remand the case to the lower appellate court who shall restore the appeal to its original file and decide issue No. 3 in accordance with the directions contained above. The appeal is allowed and the decree is set aside. No observation of mine in any way fetters the decision of the appellate court. The costs hitherto and hereafter shall abide the results.