SHIVAJIRAO Vs. BAPURAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this revision are that the plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendants for the partition of ancestral property and the plaint filed in the suit contained a pedigree. Of these defendants only and, namely, Shivajirao while admitting the pedigree, alleged that Shripatrao, grandfather of Kashirao plaintiff was a Dasiputra (illegitimate son). The other defendants did not raise this plea.

(2.) THE trial Court framed an issue about the illegitimacy and in the beginning placed the burden on the plaintiff Kesho Rao. Later on, the plaintiff submitted to the trial Court that the burden of proof should be thrown on defendant Shivajirao, who has admitted the paternity but merely challenged his legitimacy. The trial Court considered the objection and placed the burden of the issue (issue No. 1) on the defendant Shivajirao. Aggrieved by this order, defendant Shivajirao has filed this revision.

(3.) THIS revision raises an important point, relating to the question of presumption, and, the burden of proof. The subject of presumption is an important branch of the Law of Evidence. Presumption is defined "as a rule of law, on the basis of which the Court may and shall draw a particular inference from a particular fact or from particular evidence, unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved. The Law of presumption is nothing more than the rule of common sense. This is evident from the observations of Sir James Stephen made at the time of introducing the Evidence Act. He said that "the effect of this provision (Section 114 Evidence Act) is to make it perfectly clear that the Courts of justice are to use their own common sense and experience in judging the effect of particular facts and that they are to be subject to no particular rules whatever on the subject."