ORDER 1. The only question in this revision is whether the burden of proof has been rightly shifted to the defendants. The suit was instituted by Umrao as a minor though his mother Tulsa. The defendants denied that Umrao was a minor. The trial Judge framed the following issue: "Kya Vadi Nabaligh Hai" The plaintiff applied for shifting the burden of proof to the defendants and the trial Judge, accepting this request, amended the issue in the following words : "Kya Vadi Nabaligh Nahi Hai Balki Baligh Hai" The grievance of the defendants is that no reason has been assigned by the trial Judge for amending the issue and placing the burden on them. After hearing the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that this revision must be accepted. The minority of Umrao was a specific allegation in the plaint. This having been denied by the defendants it was for the plaintiff to establish the truth of his averment. Moreover, the next friend of the alleged minor plaintiff was his mother herself. There is nobody better to prove the age of a person than his mother. The principle laid down in S. 106 of the Evidence Act is attracted. The burden of proof was rightly placed on the plaintiff in the first instance. 2. Shri Khedkar strenuously urges that this Court should not interfere in revision as the question can be taken up by the defendants in appeal under S. 105 C.P.C. In my opinion, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when there should be interference in revision on a question relating to burden of proof. It was laid down in Ramprasad Ramnarain Vs. Harishchandra Dwarkadas 1952 MBLJ 103=AIR 1953 MB 56, that interference can be made on a question of burden of proof if the subordinate Court acted illegally or with material irregularity. Applying the dictum in Venkatagiri Ayyangar vs. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, AIR 1959 SC 23, there should be a breach of some provision of law, or there should be commission of some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material and affects the ultimate decision. Applying the dictum in Venkatagiri Ayyangar vs. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, AIR 1959 SC 23, there should be a breach of some provision of law, or there should be commission of some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material and affects the ultimate decision. There should be an error "in the approach of the question." In the present case, the trial Judge has altered the wording of the issue saying: ^^oknh us ukckfyx gksuk vyst djds ;g okn t;SZ ljijLr is’k fd;k gSA izfroknh us oknh dks ukckfyx gksuk crk;k gSA rFkk ljijLr dks ;g okn izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj u gksuk crk;k gSA vr% ;g izfroknh dks fl) djuk pkfg;s fd oknh ukckfyx gSA D;ksafd vxj dksbZ Hkh i{kdkj bl mez ds ckor lk{; is’k ugha djrk rks izfroknh Qsy gksxkA^^ To say the least, this order suffers from perversity of reasoning. That the plaintiff alleged himself to be a minor, which averment the defendants denied, could only be a ground for placing the burden on the plaintiff, but the learned trial Judge thinks that the denial of this averment of the plaintiff is a ground for placing the burden on the defendants. Likewise lifter rightly stating the principle that the burden of proof is on him who would fail if neither party adduced evidence, the learned trial Judge thinks that the defendants would fail if neither side led evidence. What is the basis of this thinking is not clear from his order. It is more than obvious that the plaintiff would fail if evidence was not led on the question whether he is a minor or not. Thus the manner in which the decision is reached is not only erroneous but perverse. This calls for interference in revision. In a case of this nature it is absurd to call upon the defendants to prove the plaintiff's age. 3. This revision is allowed. The order of the trial Judge dated January 11, 1960, in set aside. The trial Judge shall proceed with the trial of the issue of the plaintiff's minority as initially framed. The petitioner shall get his costs from the respondents; Counsel's fee Rs. 15/-.