- (1.)THIS revisional application is directed against an order of the trial court refusing to grant permission to the plaintiff to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence produced by the defendants on issue No. 8.
(2.)THE plaintiff-petitioner filed Title Suit No. 22 of 1973 in the court of the subordinate Judge of Kendnapara challenging two sale-deeds dated 15-1-73 executed by his father (defendant No. 1) in favour of defendants 2 and 4 on the ground of want of legal necessity. On the pleadings of the parties as many as ten issues were framed. Issue No. 8 runs aa follows: "are the alienations made by defendant No. 1 for legal necessity and is the plaintiff bound by the transfer?''
(3.)THE burden lies on defendants 2 and 4, who are purchasers under the impugned sale-deeds, to prove either that there were legal necessities in fact or that they made proper and bona fide enquiries as to the existence of such necessities and did all that was reasonable to satisfy themselves as to the existence of such necessities. It is not disputed that the burden of proving issue no. 8 lies on defendants 2 and 4 and that the plaintiff had to lead evidence on the other issues.