1. These appeals arise out of suits brought by a defeated claimant under Order 21, Rule 63. The Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suits and plaintiff appeals.

2. The sole point for determination is, whether the learned District Judge was correct in casting the burden of proving the validity of the alienation under which he claimed upon the plaintiff. It is not a point of much practical importance in this case or indeed in the generality of cases of this nature. Presumably an attaching defendant has been able to show good cause for impugning the alienation, else the claim would not have been defeated; then when the matter comes to a suit, it is largely a question of form whether the plaintiff begins by asserting the validity of his document, or the defendant by showing his proof of its invalidity. In the present case the defendant seems to be on strong ground, and if the Lower Appellate Court after finding that the transaction relied upon by the plaintiff was highly suspicious, that it was extremely doubtful if any portion of the consideration for the sale came out of the plaintiffs pocket, that the plaintiff was father of his vendors, and that at the time of the sale t