PANKAJAKSHI AMMA Vs. LEKSHMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against a decree setting aside a revenue sale 16 acres of garden land in Kunnathukal village was sold in auction for Rs. 33/- on 25-11-1117 and purchased by the 2nd defendant, the appellant. The Additional District Judge, Trivandrum, set aside the sale on the ground that two of the four concerned landholders were dead at the relevant period and their legal representatives had not been brought on record before the sale was had. The appeal is against that decree preferred by the auction purchaser.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiffs' title to the suit property having been challenged by the appellant, the plaintiffs were bound to have proved their title thereto which they had not done and therefore the suit ought to have been dismissed. The plaintiffs had produced Ext. P. 1 judgment, and Ext. P. 2 decree of the District Court, Trivandrum, in A. S. Nos. 144 and 287 of 1104, and Ext. P. 3 decree of the Travancore High Court in S. A. No. 256 of 1109 affirming the same. The title of the plaintiffs' tarwad to the suit property had been declared in those judgments. The court below had accepted the same as prima facie proof of the plaintiffs' interest in the property and therefore held them competent to question the revenue sale and to seek recovery of the property.

(3.) The expression 'burden of proof' is used in two distinct meanings but very often the distinction is overlooked. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Lakshmanna v. Venkateswarlu (AIR 1949 P. C. 278) observed: