Skip to content


Periasami Pillai Vs. Sivathia Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad112; (1940)2MLJ498
AppellantPeriasami Pillai
RespondentSivathia Pillai
Excerpt:
- .....enumerated in sections 3(ii)(a) to (d). then the burden shifts to the respondent to show prima facie that the applicant is excluded by one or other of the provisos. when this has been done the burden again shifts to the applicant to adduce materials which are specially within his knowledge and have a bearing on the applicability of the provisos. the lower court does not appear to have grasped the principles on which the onus should lie and a fresh finding is necessary on the question whether the applicant is an agriculturist.2. if he is an agriculturist the position is clear with reference to our decision in c.r.p. no. 1607 of 1938. all interest outstanding on 1st october, 1937, has to be wiped out. there after interest will have to be calculated as under section 12 of the act and.....
Judgment:

1. With reference to the question of the burden of proof under Section 3(ii) of Madras Act IV of 1938 and its provisos, it seems to us clear that the applicant, has first to establish a prima facie case that he falls under one of the categories enumerated in Sections 3(ii)(a) to (d). Then the burden shifts to the respondent to show prima facie that the applicant is excluded by one or other of the provisos. When this has been done the burden again shifts to the applicant to adduce materials which are specially within his knowledge and have a bearing on the applicability of the provisos. The lower Court does not appear to have grasped the principles on which the onus should lie and a fresh finding is necessary on the question whether the applicant is an agriculturist.

2. If he is an agriculturist the position is clear with reference to our decision in C.R.P. No. 1607 of 1938. All interest outstanding on 1st October, 1937, has to be wiped out. There after interest will have to be calculated as under Section 12 of the Act and the various payments credited as and when made. There can be no question of appropriating payments made after 1st October, 1937, to interest which was outstanding on that date.

3. The petition is allowed with costs and the application is remitted to the lower Court for disposal in the light of this judgment.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //