Luckmanjee vs. Dias – sllr 2013 volume 1 page 018

In the case between the plaintiff-appellant (seeking a declaration of title and ejectment) and the defendant-respondent (who claims the property vested in the Commissioner of National Housing), the court addressed whether the burden of proof was correctly applied concerning the plaintiff’s admitted ownership prior to 13 January 1974, and whether the property vested in the Commissioner by operation of law or by Gazette notification. It was held that the unchallenged admission of ownership should have shifted the burden, and the defendant failed to establish vesting under the correct legal standard. The principle reaffirmed is that in the presence of an admission of ownership, the plaintiff is not required to prove title, and any vesting of the property must be established by evidence in acc