Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter VII: Of the Burden of Proof
Section 111: Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of active confidence
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
Where the good faith of a transaction between parties is questioned, and one stands in a position of active confidence towards the other, the burden of proving good faith is on the party in that position.
Example: A client sues over a sale to his attorney. The attorney must prove the sale was in good faith.
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
Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence.
Illustrations
(a) The good faith of a sale by a client to an attorney is in question in a suit brought by the client. The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the attorney.
(b) The good faith of a sale by a son just come of age to a father is in question in a suit brought by the son. The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the father.
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 111
- Ravinder Nangia v. Puran Chand Sethi
- Captain Rajesh Sethi S.C v. Col. P.C.Sethi & Anr
- Kulwant Singh Hazooria Since Deceased Through Lrs and Anr & Ors v. Harcharan Singh Hazooria
- Shri Ajay Kumar Khurania and Another v. Shri Mahendra Kumar Khurania and Others
- Geeta v. Kela Devi
- Rattan Singh & Ors. v. Nirmal Gill & Ors. Etc.
- General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa and Others v. Sri Giridhari Sahu and Others
- Raja Ram v. Jai Prakash Singh and Others
- Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee & Anr.
- Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh
- Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad and Ors. v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (I) Thr. Lrs. and Ors.
- Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul and Anr. v. Pratima Maity and Ors.
- Surendra Pal & Ors. v. Saraswati Arora & Anr.
- Ningawwa v. Byrappa & 3 Ors.