📘 Free Study Material for Judiciary Aspirants!
Download our FREE study material prepared by Delhi Law Academy’s expert faculty.
Presumptions Under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
Preparation for RJS, DJS, PCS (J) and other Judicial Service exams
BHARATIYA SAKSYA ADHINIYAM EXPLAINED
The Bharatiya Saksya Adhiniyam forms the bedrock of any and every Judicial Service exam in the country. Its thorough knowledge is a must for all aspirants of RJS, DJS, PCS (J) and every other Judicial Service exam. To help such aspirants DELHI LAW ACADEMY JAIPUR has launched a series of study material modules on all important aspects of this vital part of their syllabus:
PRESUMPTION OF LIFE
Section 110
- When the question is
- whether a man is alive or dead and
- it is shown
- that he was alive within thirty years
- burden of proving that he is dead
- is on the person who affirms it
NOTE:
Presumption of Life u/s 110:
- If a person was alive any time within the last 30 years, he shall be presumed to be alive.
PRESUMPTION OF DEATH
Section 111
- But when the question is
- whether a man is alive or dead and
- it is proved
- that he has not been heard of for seven years
- by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive
- burden of proving that he is alive
- is shifted to the person who affirms it
NOTE
Presumption of Death u/s 111:
- If a person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him, he shall be presumed to be dead.
PRESUMPTION OF CONTINUANCE OF RELATIONSHIP
Section 112
- When the question is
- whether (certain) persons are partners, landlord and tenant or principal and agent and
- it has been shown
- that they have been acting as such
- burden of proving
- that they do not stand or have ceased to stand to each other in those relationships
- is on the person who affirms it
PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP
Section 113
- When the question is
- whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession
- burden of proving that he is not the owner
- is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner
Explanatory Notes by DLA
Possession raises a presumption of title
Applicability
- For Section 113 to be attracted, there must be a question as to whether any person is the owner of anything and the ownership claimed must be that of which he is shown to be in possession.
- Section 113 is based on the principle that title follows possession.
- Possession in and of itself may raise a presumption of title. But this applies when the facts disclose no title in either of the disputants in which case, as it is said, possession alone decides.
Non-applicability
- On the other hand, it is also well-settled that the presumption cannot arise when the facts are known.
- The maxim “possession follows title” is applicable in cases where proof of actual possession cannot reasonably be expected, for instance, in case of wastelands, or where nothing is known about possession one way or another.
Effect
- Where the provision applies, the burden of proving that another person who is in possession is not the owner lies on the person who affirms against the ownership of that other person.
Case Study: THE AYODHYA VERDICT [9 November 2019]
M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das [2019 SC]
Application of law to the facts of the Ayodhya Case
- The crucial test is whether the disputed site represents anything of which the Muslim parties are “shown to be in possession”.
- Unless the “shown to be in possession” requirement is fulfilled, the presumption would not arise and there would be no question of placing the burden of establishing that the plaintiffs in Suit 4 are not the owners on the contesting Hindu parties.
- Post the setting up of the wall and railing, it is evident that there were obstructions which arose in the continued worship of the Muslims in the inner courtyard. Though, the claim of the Muslims over the inner courtyard was not abandoned, yet as the evidence indicates, this was a matter of contestation and dispute.
Condition precedent
- That possession may prima facie raise a presumption of title no one can deny but this presumption can hardly arise when the facts are known. When the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides.
Authority: Nair Service Society Ltd. V. K C Alexander [1968 SC]
Object of Section 113
- The object of Section 113 is based on public policy. The object is to prevent persons from committing a breach of peace by taking the law into their own hands however good their title may be over the land in question. This object underlies provisions such as Section 6 Specific Relief Act, Section 145 CrPC and Sections 154 and 158 IPC:
Source: State of A P v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. [2013 SC]
Relevant provisions of the Specific Relief Act for cross-reference:
Section 6(1):
- If any person is dispossessed of immovable property
- without his consent, otherwise than in due course of law
- he may by suit recover possession thereof
- notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit
Section 6(4)
- this section does not bar any person from suing
- to establish his title to such property and
- to recover possession thereof
Explore More Free Resources from Delhi Law Academy
Stay updated with our monthly current affairs and explore more important legal and judicial-service articles from Delhi Law Academy.
Contact us
📍 Delhi Law Academy – Jaipur Branch
6C, Tower 2, Coaching Hub, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur – 302033
📞 Phone:
+91 9911916552
+91 8447285606
✉️ Email:
contactus@delhilawacademy.com