|
C) and a i R
|
[1922] PC 272
|
|
United Kingdom
|
circa 1922
|
|
|
 6
|
|
They " the burden of proof will vary according as the one maintain that it is a public document and rely on ! n line of defence is set up or the other the combined effect of Ss 35 and 74, Evidence Act , B On behalf of the defendants, as already pointed for the purpose of proving it This, however, pre n out, it is urged that their case has all along been supposes that the document which has been pro that the lands were lakheraj The plaintiffs are duced is really an extract from a register which the quite willing to accept that position And so accept Collector maintained under the Regulations then in ing it, they would rely on the entry in the record force; but, as I have said, I find it difficult on the of rights, which is in their favour, as sufficient to record as it stands, to say whether it is really a discharge the onus of proof which would lie on document of that description As regards the other them The plaintiffs contend that the record of documentary evidence on which the defendants rights is evidence to show that the lands formed rely, namely, the plaint and the summons which part of the plaintiffs' estate It is pointed out that relate to the same suit as well as the receipts, it the defendants are recorded therein as tenure-holders appears that these are of an equivocal character under the plaintiffs' predecessors They maintain Assuming that these are all admissible in evidence, I am still not sure that they can be regarded as 1 ('70-72)
|
14 Moore Ind App 152
|
|
India
|
circa 1922
|
|
|
2
|
