Sections 109 and 110 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872: Burden of Proof for Relationships and Ownership
Sections 109 and 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 contain special rules about the burden of proof. Section 109 concerns specified continuing relationships, while Section 110 concerns ownership where possession has been proved.
Meaning of burden of proof
In evidence law, the burden of proof identifies the party who must establish a fact or proposition before the court. Sections 101 and 102 state the general rules concerning the burden of proof. Sections 109 and 110 deal with particular situations in which an existing relationship or possession changes who must prove the contrary.
Section 109 - Burden of proof as to relationship
Section 109 applies to three specified relationships: partners, landlord and tenant, and principal and agent.
Rule under Section 109
Where it is shown that persons have been acting as partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, the burden of proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand, in that relationship lies on the person who asserts that fact.
How Section 109 operates
The section becomes relevant after evidence shows that the parties have been acting in one of the relationships specified in the provision. Once that factual foundation is established, a person alleging that the relationship does not exist or has ended must prove that assertion.
- Partners: If persons are shown to have been acting as partners, the person asserting that the partnership did not exist or had ceased bears the burden contemplated by Section 109.
- Landlord and tenant: If the parties are shown to have been acting as landlord and tenant, the person alleging that the relationship does not exist or has terminated must prove that assertion.
- Principal and agent: If persons are shown to have been acting as principal and agent, the burden of proving that the relationship did not exist or had ceased lies on the person affirming that position.
Section 109 therefore does not create the initial relationship merely by allegation. The starting fact - that the persons have been acting in the specified capacity - must first be shown. The statutory burden then operates against the party who asserts the absence or cessation of that relationship.
Section 110 - Burden of proof as to ownership
Rule under Section 110
When a person is shown to be in possession of something and the question is whether that person is its owner, the burden of proving that the person is not the owner lies on the person who asserts that the possessor is not the owner.
Possession and the evidentiary burden
Section 110 gives evidentiary significance to proved possession. Once possession is shown and ownership is disputed, the party denying the possessor's ownership carries the burden specified by the section. The provision concerns the burden of proof; the final decision on title still depends on the evidence and the applicable substantive law.
Accordingly, possession is an important starting fact under Section 110, but the section should not be read as making possession conclusive proof of ownership in every dispute. A person challenging ownership may rebut the position by producing legally admissible evidence showing a better title or otherwise establishing that the possessor is not the owner.
Difference between Sections 109 and 110
Section 109: deals with the burden of disproving or proving cessation of specified relationships after the parties are shown to have been acting in those relationships.
Section 110: deals with the burden of disproving ownership when the person whose ownership is questioned is shown to be in possession.
Connection with the general burden of proof
Sections 109 and 110 form part of the statutory scheme on burden of proof. They should be read with Sections 101 and 102 on the general burden of proof, as well as the other special burden provisions that follow. The practical question is first to identify the fact that has been established and then determine which party is asserting the contrary proposition.
Practical points
- Section 109 is limited by its wording to the relationships of partners, landlord and tenant, and principal and agent.
- The operation of Section 109 depends on first showing that the parties have been acting in the relevant relationship.
- Section 110 requires possession to be shown before its rule concerning the burden of disproving ownership applies.
- Neither provision prevents the opposing party from rebutting the position with admissible evidence.
- The provisions regulate evidentiary burden and must be applied together with the substantive law governing the underlying relationship or title dispute.
Conclusion
Under Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, once persons are shown to have been acting as partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, the person alleging that the relationship does not exist or has ceased bears the burden of proving that assertion. Under Section 110, once possession is shown and ownership is questioned, the burden of proving that the possessor is not the owner lies on the person who denies the ownership.
This article explains the pre-Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam legal position under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and is for general legal information.