T.S. Murugesam Pillai vs Manickavasaka Desika on 23 January, 1917
The respondent argues that he was merely a jawan in the
service of the family of appellant and that he had nothing
to do with the management of the properties and that as
there was no evidence worth the name in support of the
allegations in the plaint, there was no need for him to
enter into the box and give evidence that he was not in
management of the land%. If the fact of this appeal turned
on a determination of this question, we should. on the
materials before us, feel considerable difficulty in
agreeing with the decision of the learned Judges. The
failure of the first defendant to go into the box would have
been sufficient to shift the burden of proving that he was
not the manager on to him, Vide Murugesam Pillai v.
Manickavasaka Pandara(1) and Guruswami Nadar v. Gopalaswami
Odayar (2).