BAPUJI NARAYAN CHITNIS Vs. BHAGVANT BALWANT CHITNIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point taken before us is that although the plaintiffs have been hold by both the Courts not to have proved any title, still the fact that they were once in possession within twelve years of suit throws the onus of proving good title on the defendants. Doubtless there is some case-law authority which might be construed into supporting such a proposition. We, however, prefer to follow the simple Jaw established ever since the English Courts settled any principles of law at all that in a suit in ejectment the plaintiff must prove good title and that there is no onus on the defendant to prove title relatively good or bad at all. Here the plaintiffs have attempted to prove title and have proved some years possession, But it needs twelve full years to make title. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs have no title. It is not disputed that that finding of fact is binding upon us, and we are unable to see how in the face of it any relief can be decreed to the plaintiffs in this from of action.

(2.) WE must, therefore, dismiss the appeal with all costs.