Chunder Kant Mukerjee and others vs Hem Lal Mondal

These are two appeals from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Hughli setting aside the decision of a Munsif of that District. It appears that in one of these cases, namely, that out of which Appeal No. 2137 has arisen, though the Subordinate Judge made reference to the onus of proof, still he decided it on the evidence in the case. That appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.

The other Appeal No. 2138 rests on a different basis. In that case, the Subordinate Judge has thrown the onus of proof on the Defendants, and considering that the Plaintiffs, having deposited the money in Court, were not required to prove anything, he gave him a decree, holding that the annual rent of the tenure was Rs. 72.

We think the Subordinate Judge was wrong in doing that. If the Plaintiff wanted to get the money back, it was for him to show that he had a right to get it. The onus of proof was upon him. We therefore set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and send the case back to him, in order that he may decide on the evidence the conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Costs to abide the result.