Burden of proof in partition claims through a minor's sale deed rests on the claimant, not the minor's successor.

A party relying on a sale deed executed during a minor's minority in a partition suit must first prove that the deed is genuine and supported by legal necessity. The burden does not shift to the minor or her successor merely because no earlier suit was filed to challenge the deed. Where the claimant founds title on such a transaction, Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act requires proof of the facts essential to that claim. The appellant was therefore not barred by limitation from resisting the claim, and the property attributable to her share could not be included in partition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the burden of proving the genuineness and legal necessity of the sale deed executed during the appellant's minority lay on the plaintiff who relied upon it to claim title in a partition suit. (ii) Whether the appellant was required to challenge the sale deed within limitation before contesting the plaintiff's claim based on that deed.

Issue (i): The plaintiff relied on the alleged sale deed to include the disputed property in the partition schedule and to assert title through it. The dispute turned on whether the transaction was binding on a minor whose share was said to have been sold by a de facto guardian without court permission. Under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the party asserting facts essential to its claim must prove them. The plaintiff, having founded his title on the sale deed, was required first to establish that the transaction was genuine and supported by legal necessity.

Conclusion: The burden lay on the plaintiff, and it was not discharged.

Issue (ii): The limitation objection was linked to the mistaken assumption that the appellant had to initiate proceedings to avoid the sale deed. The appellant was already in possession of her share and entered the suit only after the property was included in the partition claim. Since the plaintiff was the party asserting title through the sale deed, the absence of a prior challenge by the appellant did not validate the plaintiff's case or shift the burden onto her.

Conclusion: The appellant was not barred by limitation from resisting the claim based on the sale deed.

Final Conclusion: The decree could not stand insofar as it included the appellant's share, and the suit property attributable to her was directed to be excluded from partition between the other parties.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit where title is claimed through a sale deed executed during a person's minority, the party relying on that deed must first prove its genuineness and legal necessity under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the burden cannot be shifted to the person resisting the claim merely because no prior suit was filed to challenge the deed.

---