This pertaint to good faith in a transaction and onus lies on  A's advocate to prove that the contentions of B is false with available relevant evidence. But if the said witness who was 12 years at the time of the transaction testify the fact that A took money from B by selling his share to B, that will be conclusive proof as against A in favor of B, unless it can be shown with relevant fact that B was under the domination of B, which in the present case is missing, that is dominering power of B against A. 

Please read as "with relevant fact that A was under the domination of B"

 

Originally posted by : N.K.Assumi
	This pertaint to good faith in a transaction and onus lies on  A's advocate to prove that the contentions of B is false with available relevant evidence. But if the said witness who was 12 years at the time of the transaction testify the fact that A took money from B by selling his share to B, that will be conclusive proof as against A in favor of B, unless it can be shown with relevant fact that B was under the domination of B, which in the present case is missing, that is dominering power of B against A.

Understood sir. Just that you interchanged A and B. Its B who took money from A.

We have two witness in favor of A who are also defendants in the suit, B is dead and B's heirs ex-partee.

Is documentary proof of payment still needed? 

Sister evidence will be the conclusive proof to the  exclusion of other , unless the contrary is proved. The alleged two witnesses will not be competent witnesses and will be a concoted and after thought arrangement for B's defence. In any case, unless the dominering power over B by A can be exhibited, it will be difficult for B to deny his inherited share in the face of their sister as a witness. This is a typical Biblical case of Jacob and Issac, where jacob sold his share to Issac for a morsel of food.
 

Sister evidence will be the conclusive proof to the  exclusion of other , unless the contrary is proved. The alleged two witnesses will not be competent witnesses and will be a concoted and after thought arrangement for B's defence. In any case, unless the dominering power over B by A can be exhibited, it will be difficult for B to deny his inherited share in the face of their sister as a witness. This is a typical Biblical case of Jacob and Issac, where jacob sold his share to Issac for a morsel of food.
 

If there are two witnesses who are also defendant in the partitioned suit, why it was not posted earlier. Anyway, Sister evidence will be the conclusive proof to the  exclusion of other , unless the contrary is proved. The alleged two witnesses will not be competent witnesses and will be a concoted and after thought arrangement for B's defence. In any case, unless the dominering power over B by A can be exhibited, it will be difficult for B to deny his inherited share in the face of their sister as a witness. All that A has to do is that there was no fraud on his part and that the transaction was bonafide and genuine without any dominating power over B, supported by his sister.This is a typical Biblical case of Jacob and Issac, where jacob sold his share to Issac for a morsel of food.

The two witnesses as mentioned in support of B appears to be after thought arrangement and concoted, and why it was not posted earlier in your original thread?

"Sorry for the improper alignment of the words size"

If there are two witnesses who are also defendant in the partitioned suit, why it was not posted earlier. Anyway, Sister evidence will be the conclusive proof to the  exclusion of other, unless the contrary is proved.The alleged two witnesses will not be competent witnesses and will be viewed as a concoted and after thought arrangement for B's defence. In any case, unless the dominering power over B by A can be exhibited, it will be difficult for B to claim his inherited share in the face of their sister as a witness. All that A has to do is that there was no fraud on his part and that the transaction was bonafide and genuine without any dominating power over B, supported by his sister.This is a typical Biblical case of Jacob and Issac, where jacob sold his share to Issac for a morsel of food.