The burden of proof lies with the party making a claim, and failure to provide sufficient evidence can result in the dismissal of the claim. Additionally, the Court's decision is influenced by the application of the Limitation Act in determining the validity of claims.

Wadegaonka, A J C—Defendant No. 2 was given a license to carry on the liquor shop at Kharkala Tahsil Harsud for the year 1920-21. Under the terms of the license, he had to pay Rs. 108 per month to Government as license-fee and Defendant No. 1 stood as his surety for punctual payment of this sum. As Defendant No. 2 failed to make punctual payments, Defendant No. 1 moved the Government to remove Defendant No. 2 and to permit him to carry on the liquor shop for the remaining term of the license, and the Government did accordingly. However, as plaintiff was related to Defendant No. 2, it was agreed between the parties that Defendant No. 1 should permit Defendant No. 2 to carry on the liquor shop and that plaintiff should be responsible for payment of Government demand if Defendant No. 2 failed to pay it in time. It was further agreed between the parties that if plaintiff paid the Government demand, Defendant No. 1 should recover it from Defendant No. 2 and pay it to the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that he paid the kist for January 1921, viz., Rs. 108, on 24th January 1921 and he brought a suit for recovery of this sum together with interest thereon at Rs. 2 per cent, per mensem from both the defendants on the allegation that although Defendant No. 1 recovered that kist from Defendant No. 2 he failed to pay the same to him (plaintiff).

2. Defendant No. 1 admitted that plaintiff paid the kist of January 1921 but pleaded that the money so paid by plaintiff was not plaintiff's money but his own money. He also alleged having paid the kists of February and March 1921 and he claimed from the plaintiff the money paid by him for the kists of January, February and March 1921 after giving him deduction for Rs. 55-9-6 on account of certain articles received from him.

3. Plaintiff alleged in reply that he had paid the kist for January 1921 out of his own pocket. He denied that the money so paid by him was Defendant No. 1's money. He admitted that Defendant No. 1 had paid the kists for February and March 1921, but denied His liability to pay the same on the ground that Defendant No. 1 forcibly took possession of the liquor shop from Defendant No. 2, and did not allow the latter to carry on the shop. He also brought a separate suit against Defendant No. 1 for Rs. 65-4-0 on account of the price of certain articles taken from him by Defendant No. 1 plus interest thereon at Rs. 2 per cent, per mensem (Suit No. 1286 of 1924 in the Court of Small Causes, Khandwa, decided on 9th September 1924).

4. The Small Cause Court held that Defendant No. 1 and not the plaintiff had paid the kist for January 1921. Accordingly it dismissed plaintiff's claim and gave Defendant No. 1 a decree for Rs. 335-14-0 against the plaintiff after allowing the latter deduction for the price of articles taken by the former from the latter and dismissed plaintiff's Suit No. 1286 of 1924 as well. Plaintiff has now come up in revision.

5. It is urged on behalf of the plaintiff that the Small Cause Court was wrong in holding that Defendant No. 1 had proved that the money paid for the January kist of 1921 was his money. In my opinion, this contention is sound and must prevail. The kist for January 1921 was admittedly paid into the Government Treasury by the plaintiff and the Treasury Officer passed a receipt for the same in his favour and he has filed it in Court (Ex. P-1). Under these circumstances, the onus lay heavily on Defendant No. 1 to prove that it was his (Defendant No. 1's) money which plaintiff paid into the Treasury. In order to discharge this onus, Defendant No. 1 examined himself and filed a copy of an entry in his account-books. His evidence does not prove that he or somebody else on his behalf handed over Rs. 108 to plaintiff for payment of the kist of January 1921 into the Treasury. He deposes as follows:

The sum of Rs. 109-1-0 (i.e., Rs. 108 for kist, Re. 1 for warrant and anna 1 on account of writing fee for the treasury challan) was paid by my agent to plaint