Burden of proof as to ownership
Section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with burden of proof as to ownership. When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.
Section 113, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 110 Burden of proof as to ownership Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Ram Pat vs State of Harayana
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 110, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A purchaser of an undivided share in joint family property does not acquire any right to possession of the land; his only right is to sue for partition. Therefore, the accused persons, being purchasers of undivided shares, could not claim to be in 'settled possession' of the disputed agricultural land. The four essential attributes of settled possession as established in Puran Singh (actual physical possession over sufficiently long period, possession to knowledge of owner with animus possidendi, complete and final dispossession acquiesced in by owner, and for culturable land, growing of crop) must be read conjunctively. Since the accused did not satisfy these attributes and were wholly armed aggressors while the deceased party was not armed (except with a non-dangerous Kamari), they had no right of private defence and were therefore guilty of murder.
On this section: Applied to presume continuous possession of the deceased and his family in the disputed land, as they were established to be in possession prior to the incident on June 28, 1993.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The anticipatory bail application of the deceased's mother-in-law and brotherin-law have been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 78557 of 2024. There is presumption against the accused persons under Sections 104 and 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The petitioner is father-in-law and there is allegation against him that he, alongwith others, demanded dowry from the deceased. Considering, the aforesaid and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of anticipatory bail. 7. This …
Questions about Section 113
What have the courts held on Section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Ram Pat vs State of Harayana (12 May 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 110, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Applied to presume continuous possession of the deceased and his family in the disputed land, as they were established to be in possession prior to the incident on June 28, 1993.
How do I find court cases under Section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 113, section 113 BSA, section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Ram Pat vs State of Harayana (12 May 2009).
What should I read with Section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
It carries forward IEA 110 (Burden of proof as to ownership), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 113, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.