1. The District Judge is wrong in throwing the burden of proof on defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The mortgage was executed by the mother on behalf of her minor sons. The mortgagee is bound to show that it was executed for purposes binding on the minors.
2. It is admitted for the 1st respondent that the father's debts were barred at the date of the mortgage. The guardian of the minor son has no authority to bind a minor's estate by seeking to revive them. See Chinnaya v. Gutunath I.L.R. (1882) M. 169 ; Suryanarayana v. Narindra Thatraz I.L.R. (1896) M. 255 ; Sobhanadri Appa Row v. Sriramulu I.L.R. (1894) M. 221 ; Subramania Iyer v. Arumugam Chetty I.L.R. (1903) M. 330.
3. We must, therefore, reverse the District Judge's decree and restore that of the District Munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.