પાર્ટીશન ડીડના આધારે વાદીએ માંગેલ કબ્જાની દાદ અંગે વાદી પાર્ટીશન ડીડ સાબિત કરેલ નહિ તેથી વાદી કબજો સાબિત શકેલ નહિ તે બર્ડન ઓફ પ્રૂફ પ્રતિવાદી ઉપર શિફ્ટ કરી શકાય નહિ.  (૧૨ )

રીલેટેડ પેરેગ્રાફ :

12. In terms of the aforesaid provision, the burden of proving of fact lies with the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it. This burden of proof never shifts although the onus of proof may shift. Drawing a fine distinction between the burden of proof and onus of proof, the Supreme Court in Addagada Raghavamma and Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma and Anr., reported in AIR 1964 SC 136 held that the burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. However, the onus of proof shifts. Such shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. The plaintiff has failed to create a high degree of probability that the suit land is in his possession. By merely relying upon a revenue entry mutated in the record of rights as regards partition of the suit land, by itself, is not sufficient to believe possession. Even mere production of receipts of payment of revenue is no proof or evidence as regards the possession of the property. Even, otherwise, finding with regard to possession is a pure finding of fact and both the courts below have not believed the possession of the plaintiff.