Burden of proof as to ownership
Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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 110, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 113 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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
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.
-
… Adverse Possession and Limitation : While acknowledging that the State cannot claim adverse possession against a private individual, the appellants maintain that they have been in continuous, peaceful possession of the suit land since 1879. Under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, such possession raises a presumption of ownership in their favor. Moreover, the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as they failed to challenge the appellants' possession within the prescribed period. - (iv). Necessity of …
-
… On the other hand, Sri.Abdual Jabbar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Committee refuted the aforementioned arguments and said that the plaintiffs miserably failed to discharge the onus as provided under Sections 101 and 110 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal had no other option but to dismiss the suit. Much less, even the copy of the partition deed was not placed on record. 11. Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz, learned counsel appearing for the Waqf Board, adopted the argument of Sri.Abdul Jabbar and submitted …
-
… This is the prosecution case that the petitioner is in continuing possession, use, and concealment of the properties and there are strong reasons to believe that he knowingly indulged in such processes and activities to acquire several landed properties in his name and in the name of his family members. Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when the question is whether any person is the 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 ED puts forth a stand that the survey conducted on 20th April …
Questions about Section 110
What have the courts held on Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Ram Pat vs State of Harayana (12 May 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: 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 110 of the Indian Evidence Act?
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: IEA 110, section 110 IEA, section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act. 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 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 113 (Burden of proof as to ownership), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 110, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.