Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the initial burden of proving that the sale deed was forged or fabricated lay on the plaintiff, and whether the burden shifted to the defendant merely because the defendant was said to be in possession of the document or in a dominating position.
Analysis: Section 101 places the burden of proof on the party who asserts the fact in issue, and Section 102 keeps that initial burden on the plaintiff unless and until he adduces evidence sufficient to shift the onus. Section 111 applies only where the existence of a fiduciary relationship or a position of active confidence is first established; only then does the burden of proving good faith move to the party in the dominant position. Mere pleadings do not establish such relationship, and difficulty in proving a negative does not alter the legal incidence of burden. Possession of the original document by the defendant also does not by itself reverse the statutory rule.
Conclusion: The initial burden remained on the plaintiff to establish the factual basis for shifting the evidentiary burden, and the courts below were wrong in placing the burden on the defendant without first finding the pleaded fiduciary relationship or active confidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The party asserting a fact must first prove it under Sections 101 and 102, and the burden under Section 111 arises only after a fiduciary relationship or position of active confidence is proved.