APPENDIX I. 3 



17. At present the indebted ryots seldom set up any defence to 

 these claims. They see the futility of disputing the bonds in court, 

 whatever they may think of the injustice. Indeed they have no 

 chance whatever before the law of setting up any defence which the 

 courts could be expected to act upon. But if our point (a) be passed 

 into law, they would set up defences fast enough, and this too with 

 some chance of equitable success. In this event it is manifestly just 

 and reasonable that the burden of proof should fall upon the plaintiffs. 

 But in the absence of defence in cases of this sort it seems to me but 

 right that the plaintiff should have to satisfy the court that the bond 

 is a just one. I am unable to follow the reasoning (as above quoted) 

 to the effect that to cast on the plaintiff the burden of proving receipt 

 of the consideration., and the absence of fraud, would afford 

 opportunities of evasion to dishonest debtors, and might thus be an 

 incentive to reckless borrowing. Here we have educated, skilful, and 

 wealthy creditors bringing claims against uneducated, unskilful, and 

 poor debtors. Is it unfair to cast upon such creditors the burden of 

 proving such claims to be just, even if undefended ? On the contrary, 

 does not fairness demand that such burden should be cast upon them ? 

 In fact, too, these ryot-debtors are not, for the most part, evasive or 

 dishonest debtors ; they generally pay all, and much more than all, 

 they really owe ! It is this notorious circumstance which underlies the 

 whole argument. The feeling of despair of ever getting out of the 

 money-lenders' books makes them reckless in going on borrowing and 

 borrowing and destroys all hope of independence. Our provisions will not 

 be incentives to reckless borrowing, but will have the very reverse effect. 



18. It may be, as apprehended by the Government of India, that 

 our provisions will throw much work on the courts, more perhaps than 

 they can conveniently get through. We are not indeed sure that this 

 will be the result ; but if it be so, then it ought not, in our judgment, 

 to be allowed for a moment to prevent the measure being carried. If 

 there were to be some temporary increase of judicial establishments in 

 four districts (the Bill will apply to four districts only and perhaps to 

 some special localities in addition) we shall have to meet the cost from 

 Provincial finance, which we are most willing to do. Even then the 

 cost would probably be counterbalanced by increase of stamp revenue. 

 But the net cost, if any, would be so inconsiderable that we could not 

 venture to urge it in the face of the clear considerations of justice 

 towards no important a class of our peasantry. 



