1N.L.B. 246.
* U916)272?.L.B. 218.
*{1917) 19N.L.B. 289.
HE facts appear from the judgment.
( 486 )
Ds Sampayo
Petrie v*Eperanjina
The plaintiff being the mortgagee of certain lands of one PeduruFernando would appear to have brought an action on the mortgageagainst Peduru Fernando and realized the mortgaged property,bat there being still a deficiency, it would seem the plaintiff hada representative appointed under section 642 for Peduru Fernando,who had, apparently, in the meantime died. Under writ issuedagainst that representative the property now in question, whichhad not formed part of the mortgaged property, was sold andbought by the plaintiff. The heirs of the deceased mortgagorhaving disputed the plaintiff’s title, the present action was brought.The burden of proof of title was on the plaintiff, and it must be heldthat he failed to discharge it.
I think the action was properly 'dismissed, and the Judgmentof the District Judge should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
Schneideb J-—I agree.