SUBRAMANYA AIYAR Vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the District Judge seems to have started with the idea that because the plaintiff is illiterate the burden of proving that she knew what she was doing is on the defendants. This is clearly not so. The burden is in the first place on the plaintiff to show that she did not know what she was doing. We must, therefore, ask the District Judge to find, in the light of these observations, on the evidence on record whether when the plaintiff executed Exhibit III she did not know the nature of her act.

(2.) The finding should be submitted within 6 weeks and seven days will be allowed for objections.

(3.) In compliance with the above order the District Judge submitted the following FINDING. 1. A finding is called for in the light of the order of remand on the issue whether plaintiff executed Exhibit III without knowledge of the nature of her Act. The parties place different constructions on the: order, entailing different decisions. I deal with the case in order to completeness on both. 2. Firstly, Nos. 1-5 defendants urge that the question of burden of proof is closed absolutely, and that the terms of the order involve a decision on the whole evidence before the Court, that it is on plaintiff, and leave nothing to be dealt with but the direct evidence that she did or did not know the nature of her Act. On that assumption the finding must be against her, since there is nothing in her favour but her own interested statement to the contrary, and the absence of the evidence that Exhibit III was read out to her. 3. Next, plaintiff contends that the remand was granted on the ground that this Court was understood to have imposed the burden of proof on defendants on the sole ground that she is an illiterate woman, he refers to the statement that "the burden of proof is in the first place on plaintiff," and urges that the terms of the order are intended to leave open the question of any subsequent transfer of it, which other evidence may justify. I, therefore, deal with the case on this assumption.