Section 113A creates a discretionary evidentiary presumption where a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage after being subjected to cruelty by her husband or a relative of her husband. The presumption may concern abetment of suicide, subject to consideration of all other circumstances. Cruelty carries the meaning assigned under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 113 treats a Gazette of India notification recording the pre-Part III cession of any portion of British territory to a Native State, Prince or Ruler as conclusive proof in legal proceedings. The notification conclusively establishes both the validity of the cession and its occurrence on the stated date mentioned in it.

Birth during a valid marriage, or within 280 days after dissolution while the mother remains unmarried, conclusively establishes the child's legitimacy in relation to the mother's husband. The conclusive proof is displaced only upon demonstrating that the spouses had no access to each other at any time when conception could have occurred.

Section 111A creates a rebuttable presumption where an accused person was present at a place in a disturbed or extensively disturbed area when firearms or explosives were used there to attack or resist personnel maintaining public order. Unless the contrary is shown, the person is presumed to have committed the relevant specified offence. The presumption covers offences concerning waging war against the State, related arms collection or concealment, and specified conspiracy, attempt, or abetment.

Where the good faith of a transaction is questioned between parties in a relationship of active confidence, the burden of proving good faith lies on the party occupying that position. An attorney must prove good faith in a sale by a client to the attorney, while a father must prove it where a son who has just attained majority challenges a sale to the father.

Where ownership of anything possessed by a person is disputed, the person affirming that the possessor is not the owner must prove that assertion. Possession supplies the factual basis for placing the evidentiary burden on the challenger to ownership.

Section 109 places the burden of proof on a person who asserts that an established relationship of partnership, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent does not exist or has ceased. Once parties have been shown to have acted in any of those respective capacities, the contrary assertion must be proved by the person making it, rather than by the person relying on the demonstrated relationship.

Where a person's life or death is in question, proof that the person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of the person if alive shifts the burden of proving continued life to the person asserting that the person remains alive. The rule regulates the evidential burden concerning whether a person is alive or dead.

Section 107 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 allocates the burden of proof where a person's life or death is in issue. Once it is shown that the person was alive within thirty years, the party asserting that the person has died must prove the death. The provision places the evidentiary burden on the affirmative claimant of death in such circumstances.

Burden of proof for a fact especially within a person's knowledge rests on that person. The individual with particular knowledge must establish the fact in question. Where conduct reflects an apparent intention but a different intention is asserted, the person performing the act must prove that differing intention. A person charged with railway travel without a ticket must prove ticket possession.

Section 105 places on an accused person the burden of proving circumstances that bring the case within a General Exception, a special exception or proviso in the Indian Penal Code, or an exception or proviso contained in a law defining the offence. In the absence of such proof, the court must presume that those circumstances do not exist. The burden applies to each asserted exception.

Admissibility of evidence depends on the party tendering it proving any foundational fact required before that evidence may be received. The burden lies on the person seeking to rely on the subsequent evidence. A party relying on a dying declaration must establish the declarant's death, while a party seeking secondary evidence of a document's contents must establish loss of the original document.

Burden of proof for a particular fact rests on the person seeking the Court's belief in that fact, unless another law places that burden on a specified person. A party relying on an alleged admission must establish it, while a person asserting that they were elsewhere at the relevant time must prove that fact.

Burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if neither side produced evidence. A claimant seeking land from a person in possession on the basis of a will must prove the asserted entitlement. Where execution of a bond is admitted but fraud is alleged, the party alleging fraud bears the burden of proving it; absent such proof, the admitted bond supports the claim.

Burden of proof lies on a person seeking a court's judgment concerning a legal right or liability dependent on facts asserted by that person. The person must establish those facts. This applies to allegations of criminal conduct and claims to land based on disputed facts.

Section 100 preserves statutory provisions governing the construction of wills from the effect of evidentiary rules concerning exclusion of oral by documentary evidence. The succession-law framework for construction of wills is identified under Part VI, Chapter VI of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Accordingly, those evidentiary rules do not alter principles applicable to construing wills.

Persons who are neither parties to a written instrument nor their representatives in interest may prove facts indicating a contemporaneous agreement that varies its terms. The restriction against using oral evidence to alter written contractual terms continues to bind the contracting parties themselves. An affected third party may establish a collateral oral agreement.

Evidence may establish the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible characters, foreign, obsolete, technical, local or provincial expressions, abbreviations, and words used in a peculiar sense. Where language refers to more than one subject matter, contextual evidence may identify the intended referent, including whether "all my mods" denotes models or modelling tools.

Ambiguous language may be clarified by evidence where it applies partly to each of two existing sets of facts but, taken as a whole, correctly applies to neither. Evidence is confined to identifying which of the two factual subjects the language was intended to denote.

Evidence of facts may identify the person or thing intended where language could apply to any one of several persons or things but could not apply to more than one. This mechanism permits factual identification where a seller has two white horses but agrees to sell "my white horse", or where a reference to Hyderabad may concern either of two places bearing that name.