Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 112
Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord and tenant, principal
When the question is whether persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden of proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand, to each other in those relationships respectively, is on the person who affirms it.
Why this exists
This rule comes from the old Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, carried forward into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 with modernized language. It exists because relationships like partnership, tenancy, or agency are usually easy to observe through people's conduct (running a business together, paying rent, acting on someone's behalf) but hard to prove through formal documents alone. Courts reasoned that once conduct establishes a working relationship, it is fairer to make the party who wants to deny or end that relationship carry the burden of proving the change, rather than forcing the other side to prove a negative.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor provision (Section 114, Evidence Act 1872), Indian courts consistently held that proof of conduct — such as sharing profits, paying rent, or acting on another's instructions — is enough to trigger the presumption of the relationship. Once that conduct is shown, the evidentiary burden shifts to the party denying or claiming termination of the relationship. Courts have applied this in tenancy disputes (to decide if a person is still a tenant despite claims of eviction or surrender) and partnership disputes (to decide if someone remains a partner despite claims of retirement or dissolution).
Common misconceptions
- Myth: You always need a written agreement to prove partnership, tenancy, or agency.
Fact: Courts can infer these relationships from conduct alone; once conduct is shown, the burden shifts to whoever denies the relationship, regardless of written proof. - Myth: This provision permanently locks people into a relationship.
Fact: It only shifts the burden of proof; a person can still prove the relationship ended, but they must actively provide that evidence.