TRIAL

THE TRIAL OF THE CASE BEGUN WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE

REPLY IN WRITING BY THE DEFENDANT.
IT WAS NOW LEFT TO THE JUDGE WHO HAD HEARED BOTH THE
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE ON WHICH OF THE
PARTY LIES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ADDUCING THE BURDEN OF
PROOF.
THE JURISTS LAID DOWN THE RULES REGARDING THE BURDEN OF
PROOF IN A COMPREHENSIVE MANNER.
GENERALLY IN THE EVENT OF DENIAL THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS
ON THE PLAINTIFF , IN CASES OF PROTEST OR SPECIAL PLEA OR
REFERENCE TO FORMER JUDGEMNT THE DEFENDANT HAS TO
COMMENCE THE ACT OF PROVING (KRIYA).
IN THE EVENT OF THE EVIDENCE BENG EQUALLY STRONG WITH
THE PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE AND ONLY THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS
BEING DIVIDED,BRIHASPATI RECOMMENDS MUTUAL
RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE CONCERNED PARTIES THROUGH
ROYAL ORDER.
SOON AFTER THE DEFENDENTS ANSWER THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD
DEPOSE AS TO THE PRATIJNITA AND PROOVE THE CASE.
PRATIJNITA IS THE JIST OF THE LAW SUIT.
IF HE FAILS,THE PLAINTIFF LOSES THE CASE ,IF HE GOES ACROSS
IT,HE REACHES HIS OBJECT.
THE PLAINTIFF HAS TO PROOVE THE CASE BT ATLEAST THREE
WITNESSES BEFORE THE KING AND THE BRAHAMANAS.
THESE ATTEST TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJECTIVE LAW
AND SHOW THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN INDIA
ATTRACTED THE FULL ATTENTION OF THF THE JURISTS.
IT WAS NOT A READY MADE JUSTICE ,BUT IT WAS ,IN ALL
RESPECTS,JUSTICE ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND IN
CONSONANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF JURISPRUDENCE AND
ACCEPTED SOCIAL NORMS AND EVERY POINT IN THE CASE WAS
SUBJECTED TO CLOSE SCRUTINY.
MODE OF PROOF WAS HUMAN AND DIVINE.
HUMAN EVIDENCE WAS OF THREE TYPES---
DOCUMENTS(LEKHYA),POSSESSION(BHUKTI) AND
WITNESSES(SAKSI).
DIVINE PROOF CONSISTED OF ORDEALS.ORDEALS WERE
RESORTED TO ONLY WHEN THE ORDINARY METHOD OF
PROOF WAS NOT FEASIBLE.BUT GENERALLY HUMAN
EVIDENCE WAS PREFERRED.
THE ORDINARY PROCEDURE IN TRIAL WAS BY
EVIDENCE,WHILE IN EXTRAORDINARY CASES RECOURSE
WAS TAKEN TO DIVINE EVIDENCE.
THERE WER INSTANCES OF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE,PARTICULARLY IN THE ABSENCE OF THE HUMAN
EVIDENCE,BEING CONSIDERED IN THE TRIAL OF THE CASES.
THE TRIAL INVOLVED THE EXAMINATION OF THE
DOCUMENTS,TITLE ,POSSESSION AND EVIDENCE TENDERED
BY THE WITNESSES.
THE JURISTS DID NOT GIVE ANY SCOPE FOR AMBIGUITY IN
RESPECT OF THE HUMAN PROOF.THE LAST OF THE HUMAN
EVIDENCE WAS WITNESSES AND OUR JURISTS HAVE GIVEN
AN ELABORATE LIST OF THOSE WHO WERE INELIGIBLE AND
ELIGIBLE FOR DEPOSITION.
THE JURISTS HAVE DEFINED THE VALID DOCUMENT ,HAVE
CLASSIFIED THEM AND BROUGHT OUT THEIR UTMOST
UTILITY.
THEY WERE ALSO AWARE OF THE SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS
AND HAVE NOT ONLY SEVERLY CRITISIZED THIS PRACTISE
BUT HAVE ALSO PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENTS FOR SUCH
OFFENCES.
SIMILARLY THE TITLE OF POSSESSION HAS COME IN FOR A
DETAILED TREATMENT.
TITLE IN CASE OF MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE
PROPERTY,LEGITIMATE PROPRIETARY RIGHT,THE
DURATION OF OCCUPATION WHICH ENTITLES RIGHT TO
POSSESSION HAVE ALL BEEN DISCUSSED WITH
METICULOUS DETAILS.
IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT OUR LAW GIVERS HAVE
ENSURED ADEQUATE PROTECTION IN CASE OF POSSESSION
TO AVOID UNNECESSARY HARRASSMENT.
THEY HAVE SHOWN EUAL CONCERNS FOR MINORS,IDIOTS
AND WOMEN,SO THAT THEY WERE NOT UNDULY CHEATED.
THEY HAVE NOT FORGETTON TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT OF A
MAN WHO WAS NOT PRESENT.