10. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the present case, there was a serious dispute as regards the very identity of the suit property. On one hand, the Respondents claimed that they had purchased the property at survey no. 399/7 under Sale Deed dated 15.11.1968, while on the other hand, the Defendants i.e. the Appellants herein claimed that the subject matter of the aforesaid Sale Deed was the adjoining property at survey no. 398/4. By referring to the material available on record, the learned Senior Counsel brought to the notice of this Court that there was dispute even with regard to the boundaries of the property in question and, in such circumstances, the Court ought to have appointed a commissioner for ascertaining the actual facts of the matter. As regards the question of burden placed on the Appellants with regard to the identity of the suit property and whether it was subject matter of Sale Deed dated 15.11.1968, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Appellate Court had obviously erred in placing the burden on the Appellants who were the original Defendants, because the burden was on the Respondents as the original Plaintiffs to prove their claim that the suit property was subject matter of the aforesaid Sale Deed dated 15.11.1968. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the case of Mr. Bento Antonio Gomes alias vs. Rosario Salvador Carneiro1 , in order to
