defendant because he was working in MCH, however, the parties agreed that the plaintiff would own the said allotted house and pursuant to the said agreement, the plaintiff made the initial payment to MCH and thereafter also he paid instalments and obtained receipts. It is his further case that he has been residing in the house since 1960 as an owner of the property. Further, he made improvements to the suit house by constructing two more rooms. All these facts, according to plaintiff would assert his right in the suit property as a true owner and at the same time, depict the defendant only as an ostensible owner. When this is the case of plaintiff, the Court should expect him to establish these facts by cogent evidence irrespective of the weakness in the defence taken by the defendant denying plaintiff’s case and pleading that plaintiff was only a licencee. However, when the matter of evidence comes, learned counsel would argue, the plaintiff has not produced any cogent and reliable evidence to establish the above facts. Except filing Exs.A.1 to A.8—instalment-payment receipts, which too stood in the name of the defendant and copies of the legal notices exchanged between the parties and Exs.A.14 and A.15—tax receipts which relate to the period subsequent to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff has not produced any other reliable evidence to confer decree in his favour.
