JUDGMENT K. N. Srivastava, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Deoria allowing an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the III Additional Munsif, Deoria dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows, The defendant-appellant obtained a money decree against defendants nos. 2 to 4. In execution of that decree, the disputed trees and bamboo clumps were attached. The plaintiff filed an objection under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. alleging that the trees and the bamboo clumps belonged to him and were not liable to be attached and sold. This objection was dismissed by the executing court. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff filed a suit under Order 21 Rule 63 C.P.C. for a declaration that the trees and the bamboo clumps in suit belonged to him and were not liable to be sold in execution of the decree which the defendant-appellant had against defendants nos. 2 to 4. 3. The learned Munsif held that the trees and the bamboo clumps belonged to the judgment-debtors and were liable to be sold in the execution of the decree. The learned lower appellate court held that the disputed trees and bamboo clumps belonged to the plaintiff and granted a declaration sought by the plaintiff-respondent. Being dissatisfied, the defendant-appellant has filed this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned lower appellate court erred in placing the burden on the defendants that the sale-deed was fictitious document. As the law stands, the initial burden no doubt is on the creditor but when the creditor is able to discharge the initial burden, the burden shifts to the other side, namely, the plaintiff to prove that the sale-deed was genuinely executed and not with the intention to defraud any creditor. The reason for keeping the initial burden on the creditor is simple. A creditor cannot lead direct evidence that a certain deed was excused in order to defraud the creditors. He has only to show and prove certain circumstances from which that inference can be drawn and if he is able to prove such circumstances from which an inference adverse to the debtor can be drawn then it is for the debtor to prove that the transaction was a genuine one. He has only to show and prove certain circumstances from which that inference can be drawn and if he is able to prove such circumstances from which an inference adverse to the debtor can be drawn then it is for the debtor to prove that the transaction was a genuine one. This view of mine is supported by a decision of the Punjab High Court in Bachan Singh Harnam Singh v. Banarsi Das Hari Ram, A.I.R. 1961 Punjab 361. 5. This being the correct position of law, it is now to be seen as to whether the defendant-creditor has been able to discharge the initial burden in this case. Admittedly, the plaintiff Mangal Rao is a resident of a village which is a mile away from the village where the disputed trees and bamboo clumps are situated. In the Haisiyat register these trees and bamboo clumps were shown to be the property of Sheikh Bambai, the father of defendants nos. 2 to 4 who are the judgment-debtors in this case. It should be noted here that the debt was taken by Sheikh Bambai and as Sheikh Bambai had died before the institution of the suit, therefore, the defendant-appellant filed the suit against defendants nos. 2 to 4 who were the heirs of Sheikh Bambai. Not only this, the conduct of defendants nos. 2 to 4 also goes to show that they had been always treating these trees bamboo clumps to be their property. They showed the disputed trees and bamboo clumps as their property in the Cooperative Department when they made an application for a loan. 6. A perusal of the two sale deeds Exs. 2 and 3 would show that there is some truth in the contention of the defendant-appellant and that these deeds came into existence much later than the date on which they are said to have been executed. In Ex. 2., it appears that the ink had spread on the reverse side of the stamp paper at places where the stamp has been folded. This indicated that the deed was written subsequently, otherwise, there was no reason for the ink to have spread on the reverse side of the stamped paper. This is another suspicion which goes in favour of the defendant-appellant. 7. This indicated that the deed was written subsequently, otherwise, there was no reason for the ink to have spread on the reverse side of the stamped paper. This is another suspicion which goes in favour of the defendant-appellant. 7. In the light of these facts and circumstances, I have not the least doubt that the defendant-appellant had discharged his initial burden and it was for the plaintiff to prove otherwise. I have already discussed that the plaintiff was a stranger to the village. Besides this, the plaintiff and his witness have given out different ages of the trees which cannot be reconciled. This indicates that the plaintiff had not even seen the trees. The plaintiff has not been able to prove the burden which lay on him after the initial burden was discharged by the defendant-appellant. In view of this, the finding arrived at by the learned lower appellate court is proverse and as such it cannot be maintained. 8. In the result, the appeal succeeds. It is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is set aside and the one passed by the trial court is restored. Costs easy.