4 APPENDIX I. 



19. No doubt, as justly observed by the Government of India our 

 proposal will conflict with section 102 of the Evidence Act regarding 

 the burden of proof. But we submit that this per se is no prohibitive 

 reason against our proposal. It certainly renders special legislation 

 necessary, and therefore we have now to apply to the Legislature. The 

 question is one of plain justice in these cases. Once that is deter- 

 mined, it becomes, we submit, the duty of the Legislature to frame a 

 suitable law to supplement the general law. 



20. We willingly aknowledge that either by the new Civil Proce- 

 dure Code, or by the new Bill, an indebted ryot may, by applying for 

 benefit of insolvency previsions, save himself from arrest and impri- 

 sionment ; that his implements and agricultural cattle cannot be sold 

 in execution of decree for debt ; that his cottage, his land, his tenure 

 and rights therein cannot be so sold either all of which constitute 

 beneficial improvements in his condition, for which he may indeed be 

 grateful to the Legislature. We now receive permission to provide by 

 local legislation that he shall not be unreasonably liable for ancestral 

 debts, nor for an usurious rate of compound interest all which cons- 

 titutes a still further improvement, and a further cause of thankfulness. 



21. Still we submit that despite these various provisions there 

 may be, and will be, very many unjust bonds, to which the ryots will 

 have to submit, unless the courts be not only empowered, but obliged, 

 to 20 behind the bonds. 



o 



22. No exclusion of ancestral debts, no restriction of usurious 

 interest, can prevent bonds being drawn up for a fictitious principal, or 

 in acknowledgment of amounts which were never given by the creditor 

 nor received by the debtor. And it is this concoction, this manipula- 

 tion as it were, of the principal, which is one of the strongest elements 

 of injustice in these bonds, which injustice cannot possibly be remedied 

 unless the courts be obliged to go behind the bonds. 



23. Again, notwithstanding the humane provisions of the insol- 

 vency law, the merciful exemption of implements of land, and of cotta- 

 ges from sale, still there are many domestic articles which cannot be 

 so exempted, which are of lesser importance, and more particularly the 

 standing crop which is of great importance, as it supplies the food of 

 the ryot and his family. What arrangements an insolvent court would 

 make for the subsistence of the ryot cannot exactly be foreseen. 

 Possibly some arrangement would be made, though I am advised that 

 the law does not compel the court to make any such arrangements. 



