Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 113
Burden of proof as to ownership
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.
Why this exists
This rule reflects an old, practical principle of evidence law: possession is usually the best visible sign of ownership in everyday life, since most people who hold or use property genuinely own it. Requiring every possessor to prove ownership from scratch would be unworkable, so the law shifts the burden onto whoever challenges that ownership. This provision continues the same rule found in Section 110 of the earlier Indian Evidence Act, 1872, carried forward into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
How courts read it
Under the corresponding provision in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, courts have held that this presumption is one of fact, not conclusive proof — it can be rebutted by better evidence of title, such as documents, prior ownership records, or witness testimony. Courts have clarified that the presumption applies mainly to disputes over movable or immovable property where actual physical possession is proved, and it does not override clear documentary evidence of ownership.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Possession always means legal ownership, no matter what.
Fact: Possession only creates a presumption of ownership — courts have held it can be disproved with stronger evidence like documents or witnesses. - Myth: This rule applies only to land or big property.
Fact: It applies to 'anything' a person possesses, though courts assess its strength differently depending on the type of property and context.