Burden to prove title to compensation shifted to claimant, while the High Court's view was left largely undisturbed.

The High Court's view on the claim to compensation following abolition of tenure was treated as a plausible one and was not interfered with. Since the respondent asserted a right to the compensation amount, the burden of establishing title to that amount was placed on the respondent rather than on the appellants. The order was modified to allow the respondent to file a civil suit within the stipulated time, with that period treated as spent in good faith for limitation purposes, and with consequential directions protecting both sides depending on whether the suit was instituted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court's view regarding the claim to compensation on abolition of tenure required interference, and which party should be directed to approach the civil court to establish title to the compensation amount.

Analysis: The High Court's view was found to be a plausible one and was not disturbed. However, since the claim to the compensation amount was asserted by the respondent, the burden of establishing the claimed right was placed on the respondent rather than on the appellants. The order was modified to permit the respondent to institute a civil suit within the stipulated time, with the period treated as spent in good faith for limitation purposes, and with consequential directions to protect both sides depending on whether such suit was filed.

Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with modification, the High Court's decision being substantially affirmed but the obligation to sue shifted to the respondent, with protective directions regarding the compensation amount.

---