Lord Sumner:-

The issue in this case was simply whether the plaintiff had or had not paid certain money some twelve years before the trial. The burden of proof was on him. He did not go into the witness box. He called no satisfactory evidence to account for the disappearance of the important contemporary documents, namely, the receipts, which he alleged had been in his possession. The evidence of his witnesses was flimsy and contradictory. At The trial he succeeded.

The Court of the Judicial Commissioner, after a very careful examination of the evidence, held that he had not proved his case, and allowed the appeal. The Subordinate Judge had accepted his evidence not because it had impressed him as truthful, for he called it unconvincing, but because he thought that there was some presumption that such a payment must have taken place. It has been urged upon their Lordships that such a payment was probable, though for reasons which appear to have escaped the trial Judge. They are, however, reasons applicable to parties who were traders or professional money-lenders, but it is admitted that the parties here were cultivators and peasants, to whom such reasoning is much less applicable.

T