1933 Present: Dalton A.C.J. and Drieberg J.

VYTHIAMPILLAI v. SADANATHA.

197-D. C. Jaffna, 16,400.

Partition action-Intervention after interlocutory decree-Burden of proof on intervenient-Discharge of onus.

A party, who has obtained an interlocutory decree in a partition action, is not bound to prove his title afresh against an intervenient who has failed to establish his right to intervene.

APPEAL from an order of the District Judge of Jaffna.

V. E. Weerasooria (with him Gnanapragasam and Subramaniam), for seventh, eighth, and ninth added parties, appellants.

H. V. Perera (with him Kandiah), for substituted intervenient, respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

June 26, 1933. DALTON A.C.J.-

The partition action out of which this appeal arises commenced in the year 1921. The land the subject of the partition consists of that extent of land subdivided into lots 1 to 6, as set out on plan No. 4,122 of July 1, 1922, and on plan No. 4,288 dated February 7, 1923, produced in the case. Although in each plan the extent appears to be the same, the land has not been subdivided in the same way. In the course of time and much handling, the record of the case, includin