Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter VII: Of the Burden of Proof
Section 110: Burden of proof as to ownership
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
In plain words
When a person is shown to be in possession of something, the burden of proving they are not its owner is on the person who says so.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 110
-
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were held to be the lawful owners of the ‘Patta Land’.
-
The State of Haryana & Anr. v. Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Ors.
Respondents/Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession of the suit property against the Appellants/Defendants, i.e. State of Haryana and Public Works Department. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the…
-
The State of Punjab and Ors. v. Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs.
Whether the suit for possession filed by the respondents was barred by limitation; whether the burden of proof of ownership would lie on the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession; whether the…
-
Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi & Ors .
Whether the High Court was correct in holding that owing to the non-production of any document by appellant evincing as to how the sons’ of the seller obtained the suit property in a partition Exhibit A1-registered sale…
- M/s. D. N. SINGH v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
- The Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur v. Prakash
- M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. V. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors
- The State of A.P. & Ors. v. M/S. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co.
- Ram Pat & Ors. v. State of Haryana
- Patinhare Purayil Nabeesumma v. Miniyatan Zacharias and Another
- Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors.
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem v. K. Chinnthamban
- Standard Chartered Bank v. Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. & Ors
- Chief Conservator of Forests Govt. of A.P. v. The Collectors and Ors.