Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Evidence as to the Meaning of Illegible Characters, etc.[Section 101]
Introduction
Sometimes documents placed before the court contain words, characters, or expressions whose meaning is not clear to ordinary persons. These may be illegible, technical, foreign, obsolete, or used in a special sense. In such cases, the court may require external assistance to understand the true meaning of the document.
Section 101 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 addresses this issue.

Statutory Provision
Section 101 provides that evidence may be given to explain the meaning of:

1. Foreign, obsolete, technical, local, or regional expressions
2. Abbreviations
3. Words used in a peculiar or special sense

Nature and Scope of Section 101

• This section allows extrinsic evidence to explain words or characters that are:
  • Illegible
  • Not commonly intelligible
  • Known only to persons with special skill or knowledge
• Such documents are not treated as ambiguous merely because the court lacks technical or specialized knowledge.
• The object is to ascertain the real intention of the parties and the true meaning of the document.

Illustration

• A, a sculptor, agrees in writing to sell to B “all my mods.”
• A possesses both:
  • Models, and
  • Modelling tools
• The word “mods” is ambiguous and technical.
• Evidence may be given to show what A intended to sell.

Evidence Permitted under Section 101

• Expert evidence may be given by:
  • Persons skilled in a particular trade or profession
  • Persons familiar with local or regional usage
• Evidence may also be given by persons who understand:
  • Technical terms
  • Abbreviations
  • Expressions used in a special or peculiar sense

Rationale of the Section

• Courts are not expected to possess technical, professional, or local knowledge of all fields.
• Justice demands that documents should be interpreted:
  • In the sense intended by the parties
  • According to the usage understood by persons familiar with such terms
• Section 101 prevents rejection of documents merely due to lack of clarity to the court.

Conclusion
Section 101 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 permits evidence to explain illegible or not commonly intelligible expressions in documents. By allowing expert or knowledgeable testimony, the law ensures that technical or obscure language does not defeat the true intention of the parties or obstruct justice.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Evidence as to the Application of Language to One of Two Sets of Facts [Section 100]

​Introduction
Sometimes the language used in a document does not fully or correctly apply to any one set of facts. Instead, it partly applies to two different existing sets of facts, creating ambiguity as to which was intended by the parties. Section 100 provides a rule to resolve such ambiguity.

Statutory Provision
Section 100 states that:

• When the language used in a document applies partly to one set of existing facts and partly to another set of existing facts,
• but does not apply correctly to either set as a whole,
• then evidence may be given to show to which of the two sets of facts the language was intended to apply.

Nature of Ambiguity under Section 100

• The ambiguity arises not from unclear words, but from uncertain application of clear words.
• The document refers to two existing factual situations, but fits neither perfectly.
• This is a case of latent ambiguity, which becomes apparent only when the document is applied to facts.

Illustration

• A agrees to sell to B “my land at X in the occupation of Y.”
• A owns:
  • Land at X, but it is not occupied by Y, and
  • Land occupied by Y, but it is not situated at X.
• The description partly fits both properties but fully fits neither.
• Evidence may be given to show which land A actually intended to sell.

Scope and Application

• This section allows extrinsic evidence to:
  • Clarify intention of the parties
  • Identify the correct subject matter of the document
• The evidence does not contradict or vary the document, but explains its application.

Rationale of the Section

• The law aims to give effect to the true intention of the parties rather than invalidate the document.
• Rejecting such documents would lead to injustice where intention is clear but description is imperfect.
• Section 100 enables courts to resolve practical ambiguities arising from imperfect drafting.

Key Points to Remember

• Applies only when two existing sets of facts are involved.
• Language must apply partly to both, but completely to neither.
• Evidence is admissible only to identify the intended facts, not to alter the document.

Conclusion
Section 100 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 permits extrinsic evidence where documentary language imperfectly applies to two existing factual situations. By allowing clarification through evidence, the provision ensures that documents are interpreted in line with the true intention of the parties and justice is not defeated by technical ambiguities.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Evidence as to the Application of Language Which Can Apply to One Only of Several Persons or Things [Section 99]
Introduction
Sometimes the language used in a document is clear in itself but becomes ambiguous when applied to facts because it fits more than one person or thing. Section 99 deals with such situations and permits the use of extrinsic evidence to identify the intended subject.

Statutory Provision
Section 99 provides that:

• When the facts are such that the language used might have been meant to apply to anyone,
• and could not have been meant to apply to more than one of several persons or things,
• then evidence may be given of facts which show which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to.

Nature of Ambiguity under Section 99

• The language of the document is plain and unambiguous on its face.
• Ambiguity arises only when the language is applied to external facts.
• The description fits more than one person or thing, but the intention was clearly for only one.
• This is a case of latent ambiguity.

Illustrations
Illustration (a):

• A agrees to sell to B “my white horse.”
• A owns two white horses.
• Evidence may be given to show which horse was intended.

Illustration (b):

• A agrees to accompany B to Ramgarh.
• There are two places named Ramgarh (e.g., Ramgarh in Rajasthan and Ramgarh in Uttarakhand).
• Evidence may be given to show which Ramgarh was meant.

Scope and Application

• This section allows oral or extrinsic evidence only to:
  • Identify the correct person or thing
  • Clarify intention where description is insufficient
• The evidence does not contradict, vary, or add to the document.
• It merely explains to whom or to what the language applies.

Judicial Illustration (Conceptual)

• Where a promissory note mentions a date according to both a local calendar and an international calendar, and the two dates differ,
• Evidence may be led to show which date was actually intended.

Rationale of the Section

• The law prioritizes intention over literal ambiguity.
• Documents should not fail merely because of imperfect identification.
• Section 99 helps courts arrive at the true intention of the parties without rewriting the document.

Key Points to Remember

• Applies when only one person or thing was intended, though several fit the description.
• Language is clear, but facts create ambiguity.
• Extrinsic evidence is admissible only for identification, not alteration.

Conclusion
Section 99 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 permits extrinsic evidence where documentary language applies equally to more than one person or thing, though the intention was for only one. By allowing clarification through surrounding facts, the provision ensures fairness and accurate interpretation of documents.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Evidence as to Document Unmeaning in Reference to Existing Facts [Section 98]

Introduction
Sometimes the language used in a document is clear and plain on its face, but when applied to existing facts, it becomes meaningless because the facts described do not exist. Section 98 addresses such situations and permits extrinsic evidence to explain the intention behind the words used.

Statutory Provision
Section 98 provides that:

• When the language used in a document is plain in itself,
• but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts,
• evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense.

Nature of Ambiguity under Section 98

• The document is clear on its face.
• Ambiguity arises because:
  • The facts described do not exist, or
  • The description is factually incorrect.
• The document becomes unmeaning when applied to reality.
• This is a form of latent ambiguity.

Illustration
Example:

• A sells to B, by deed, “my house in Kolkata.”
• A owns no house in Kolkata.
• However, A owns a house in Howrah, and:
  • B has been in possession of that house since the execution of the deed.
• Evidence may be given to show that the words “house in Kolkata” were used in a peculiar sense to refer to the house in Howrah.

Scope and Application

• This section applies where:
  • The description is mistaken, but
  • The intention is clear from surrounding circumstances.
• Oral or extrinsic evidence is admissible to:
  • Explain the peculiar or intended meaning, and
  • Identify the subject matter correctly.
• The evidence does not contradict or vary the document.
• It merely clarifies the intended reference.

Underlying Principle

• False description does not invalidate a document, if the intention can be clearly ascertained.
• Courts prioritize:
  • Intention of parties, and
  • Substance over technical errors.
• Section 98 prevents injustice caused by clerical or descriptive mistakes.

Additional Illustration (Conceptual)

• A agrees by written deed to sell a house described as being located in a particular locality.
• It is later found that the seller has no house in that locality, but owns a house nearby:
  • Which the buyer already occupies.
• Evidence can be led to show that the house actually owned and occupied was intended to be sold.

Key Points to Remember

• Language is plain, but facts make it meaningless.
• Applies where description is wrong, not intention.
• Extrinsic evidence explains peculiar usage of words.
• Helps uphold the validity of documents despite factual errors.

Conclusion
Section 98 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 allows evidence to explain a document whose language, though plain, becomes meaningless when applied to existing facts. By permitting proof of peculiar usage, the provision ensures that documents are interpreted in accordance with the true intention of the parties and are not defeated by mere descriptive mistakes.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023Exclusion of Evidence Against Application of Document to Existing Facts[Section 97]
IntroductionIn certain cases, the language used in a document is clear and unambiguous and also fits perfectly with the existing facts. In such situations, the law does not permit parties to lead evidence to show that the document was intended to apply to some other facts. Section 97 embodies this principle and excludes contradictory evidence.

Statutory Provision
Section 97 provides that:

• When the language used in a document is plain in itself, and
• When it applies accurately to existing facts,
• Evidence may not be given to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts.

Nature of Ambiguity Covered

• This section deals with a patent clarity:
  • The language is clear.
  • The facts exactly match the description.
• No ambiguity—either patent or latent—exists.
• Any attempt to apply the document to different facts is barred.

Illustration
Example:

• A sells to B, by deed, “my estate at Rampur containing one hundred bighas.”
• A actually owns:
  • An estate at Rampur, and
  • The estate contains exactly one hundred bighas.
• Evidence cannot be given to show that:
  • A intended to sell an estate situated elsewhere, or
  • Of a different size.

Principle Underlying Section 97

• Where words are clear and facts fit perfectly, the document must speak for itself.
• Courts will not allow:
  • Oral evidence,
  • Extrinsic facts, or
  • Explanations
    that contradict the clear application of the document.
• This rule preserves:
  • Certainty of written instruments,
  • Sanctity of documents, and
  • Stability of transactions.

Type of Defect Covered

• This section addresses a second type of patent defect, where:
  • The document is clear,
  • The facts correspond exactly,
  • Yet one party seeks to displace the obvious meaning.
• Such evidence is strictly excluded.

Exception – Explanatory Evidence

• While contradictory evidence is excluded,
• Explanatory evidence may sometimes be admissible, especially in cases of:
  • Admissions,
  • Clarifications by the maker of the document.

Judicial Pronouncement
In General Court Martial v. Col. Anil Tej Singh Dhaliwal, it was held that:

• An admission contained in a document may be explained by its maker.
• Oral evidence of an explanatory nature is admissible.
• However, such explanation must not contradict the clear application of the document to existing facts.

Key Points to Remember

• Language is clear and unambiguous.
• Description perfectly fits existing facts.
• No oral evidence allowed to contradict application.
• Prevents parties from altering clear written intentions.
• Ensures certainty and finality of documents.

Conclusion
​Section 97 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 strictly excludes evidence where the language of a document is plain and correctly applies to existing facts. The provision upholds the rule that when words and facts clearly correspond, the document must be enforced as written, without allowing extrinsic evidence to alter its meaning.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Burden of Proving that the Case of the Accused Comes within Exceptions [Section 108]
​
1. Introduction
The general rule of evidence is that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact. In criminal law, this means that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, when an accused seeks to take the benefit of any exception—such as a General Exception under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), or a special exception or proviso under any other law—the burden of proving the existence of such circumstances lies upon the accused.
Until such circumstances are proved, the law presumes their absence.

2. Statutory Provision under Section 108
Section 108 provides that:

• When a person is accused of any offence,
• the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case:
  • within any of the General Exceptions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or
  • within any special exception or proviso contained in the Sanhita or in any other law defining the offence,
• lies upon the accused, and
• the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.

3. Illustrations
The application of this principle can be understood through the following illustrations:

• Illustration (a):
  A is accused of murder and pleads that, due to unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of his act. The burden of proving such unsoundness of mind lies on A.
• Illustration (b):
  A is accused of murder and claims that he acted under grave and sudden provocation. The burden of proving the existence of such provocation is on A.
• Illustration (c):
  A is charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. If he claims that his act falls within the exception provided under sub-section (2) of Section 122, the burden of proving such circumstances rests on A.

4. Scope and Application of Section 108
Section 108 applies only in criminal cases where the accused claims the benefit of an exception. The prosecution is required only to establish the commission of the offence. Once this is done, the accused may invoke a defence under:

• General Exceptions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; or
• Any special exception or proviso contained in the law defining the offence.

At this stage, the burden shifts to the accused.

5. Nature of the Burden on the Accused
The burden placed on the accused under Section 108 is not as stringent as the burden on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the accused is required to prove his defence only on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities.
This means:

• The accused is not required to conclusively prove the existence of the exception;
• It is sufficient if the circumstances relied upon by the accused appear more probable than not.

This lower standard is justified because, for example, a person claiming unsoundness of mind cannot reasonably be expected to prove insanity beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Mode of Discharging the Burden
The accused may discharge the burden under Section 108 by:

• Producing independent evidence in support of his plea;
• Relying on admissions or facts emerging from the prosecution’s own evidence;
• Eliciting favourable circumstances through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses;
• Relying on surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case.

Thus, the accused is not confined to leading direct evidence alone.

7. Judicial Interpretation
The courts have consistently held that:

• The burden on the accused to prove an exception is lighter than the prosecution’s burden;
• It is enough if the accused shows that his plea is reasonably probable.

In State of U.P. v. Ram Sarup, it was held that the accused need not prove the exception beyond reasonable doubt; proof by preponderance of probabilities is sufficient.
In K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, where the accused claimed the defence of grave and sudden provocation, the Supreme Court observed that although the prosecution bears the primary burden, once the accused invokes a General Exception, Section 108 operates to shift the burden onto him. As Nanavati failed to establish the plea of provocation even on a balance of probabilities, he was convicted of murder.

8. Conclusion
Section 108 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 embodies an important exception to the general rule of burden of proof in criminal trials. While reaffirming the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, it ensures that an accused who seeks the benefit of an exception must establish the factual foundation for such a claim. By requiring proof only on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, the law strikes a fair balance between individual defence rights and the administration of criminal justice.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Burden of Proving Fact to be Proved to Make Evidence Admissible [Section 107]
​
1. Introduction
In the law of evidence, a party cannot lead evidence in isolation. Very often, the admissibility of one piece of evidence depends upon the prior proof of another foundational fact. Where a person seeks to prove a fact or produce evidence which is admissible only upon proof of some preliminary fact, the burden of proving such preliminary or foundational fact lies upon that person.
Section 107 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 embodies this principle and governs the burden of proof in matters relating to the admissibility of evidence.

2. Statutory Provision under Section 107
Section 107 provides that:

• The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact lies on the person who wishes to give such evidence.

In other words, if a person wants to adduce evidence of a particular fact, and the law requires that another fact must first be proved to make such evidence admissible, then the burden of proving that preliminary fact is on the person seeking to rely on the subsequent evidence.

3. Illustrations
The operation of Section 107 can be clearly understood through the following illustrations:

• Illustration (a):
  A wishes to prove a dying declaration made by B. Since a dying declaration is admissible only when the maker of the statement is dead, A must first prove the death of B. The burden of proving B’s death lies on A.
• Illustration (b):
  A wishes to prove the contents of a lost document by secondary evidence. Before secondary evidence can be admitted, A must prove that the original document has been lost. The burden of proving such loss lies on A.

4. Scope and Application
Section 107 applies whenever:

• The admissibility of evidence depends upon the existence of a particular fact; and
• Such fact is asserted by the party seeking to adduce that evidence.

The burden of proof in this context does not relate only to substantive facts in issue, but also extends to:

• Facts relating to the admissibility of evidence;
• Facts necessary for the construction or interpretation of documents;
• Facts forming the foundation for exceptions such as hearsay evidence or secondary evidence.

Thus, the burden of adducing evidence applies equally to foundational facts and not merely to facts expressly pleaded in the case.

5. Principle Underlying Section 107
The principle underlying Section 107 is simple:
No evidence can be admitted unless the legal conditions for its admissibility are first satisfied.
If the law requires proof of a preliminary condition before a particular kind of evidence can be received, the party who wants to rely on such evidence must establish that condition. Until such proof is furnished, the evidence remains inadmissible.
For example:

• A party seeking to rely on hearsay evidence under an exception must first prove that the case falls within the recognised exception;
• A party seeking to rely on secondary evidence must prove the non-availability of the original document.

6. Judicial Interpretation
Courts have consistently held that the burden under Section 107 lies squarely on the party seeking to rely on the evidence. In Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, it was observed that where a party challenges the constitutionality of a statute, the challenge must be specific, clear, and unambiguous. The burden of proving the alleged violation of constitutional provisions lies on the person who raises such a challenge.
This principle reinforces the rule that a party cannot be permitted to rely on evidence or legal contentions unless the foundational facts justifying their admissibility are duly established.

7. Conclusion
Section 107 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of evidentiary rules. It ensures that evidence is admitted only after compliance with the statutory conditions governing its admissibility. By placing the burden of proving foundational facts on the party seeking to rely on such evidence, the provision prevents abuse of evidentiary rules and upholds procedural fairness in judicial proceedings.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Burden of Proof as to Particular Fact [Section 106]
1. Introduction
In judicial proceedings, a court does not accept facts merely because they are asserted. If a party desires the Court to believe the existence of a particular fact, the responsibility of proving that fact lies on that party. This principle reflects the fundamental rule that he who asserts must prove.
Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 specifically deals with the burden of proof concerning a particular fact, as distinguished from the burden of proving the entire case.

2. Statutory Provision under Section 106
Section 106 provides that:

• The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless any law expressly provides that the proof of such fact shall lie on some other person.

Thus, whenever a party relies on a specific factual assertion to support its case or defence, that party must lead evidence to establish that fact.

3. Illustrations
The application of Section 106 can be understood through the following illustrations:

• Illustration (a):
  A prosecutes B for theft and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. The burden of proving such admission lies on A.
• Illustration (b):
  B wishes the Court to believe that at the time of the alleged theft, he was elsewhere (plea of alibi). The burden of proving this fact lies on B.

4. Scope and ApplicationSection 106 applies where:

• A party asserts a specific fact in support of its claim or defence;
• Such fact is not presumed by law; and
• No statutory provision shifts the burden of proving that fact to another person.

This Section does not require a party to prove the entire case, but only the specific fact relied upon by that party. It operates independently of the general burden of proof under Section 104.

5. Judicial Interpretation
​Courts have consistently applied Section 106 to allocate the burden of proof regarding specific facts:

• In State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, it was held that when an accused takes the plea of alibi, the burden of proving it lies upon him.
• In S.J. Ebenezer v. Velayudhan, the Supreme Court held that where a landlord seeks eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, the burden of proving genuine need lies on the landlord.
• In Neelakandan v. Mallika Begum, the tenant claimed protection under the Slum Areas Act. The landlady denied that the property was situated in a slum area. The Court held that the burden of proving that the property was situated in a slum area lay on the tenant.
• In Krishna Mohan Kul v. Pratima Maity, it was held that when fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence is alleged, the burden of proving such allegations lies on the party who asserts them.

6. Difference between Section 106 and Section 104

• Section 104 deals with the burden of proving the entire case and all facts necessary to entitle a party to a judgment.
• Section 106, on the other hand, concerns the burden of proving only a particular fact relied upon by a party, not the whole chain of facts.

Thus, Section 106 operates in a narrower field and supplements the general rule contained in Section 104.

7. Relation with Section 107
While Section 106 deals with proof of a particular fact, Section 107 deals with the burden of proving a fact that is necessary to make another fact or piece of evidence admissible. Both provisions work together to ensure that facts essential for belief or admissibility are properly established before the Court.

8. Conclusion
Section 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 reinforces the principle that a party cannot expect the Court to accept a factual assertion unless it is proved. By placing the burden of proving a particular fact on the party who asserts it, the provision promotes fairness, clarity, and judicial efficiency in adjudication.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Burden of Proof as to Ownership [Section 113]
1. Introduction
The popular maxim “possession is nine-tenths of the law” signifies the importance of possession in determining ownership. As a general rule, the person in possession of a property is presumed to be its owner. However, this presumption is not absolute, and in certain cases, ownership must be specifically proved before a court of law.
In disputes relating to possession and ownership, the following principles operate as rules of evidence:

• Possession follows title, and
• Title follows possession.

These principles are particularly applied where there is no sufficient or independent evidence to conclusively establish possession or title.

2. Statutory Provision under Section 113
Section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that:

• When the question arises whether a person is the owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession,
• the burden of proving that he is not the owner lies on the person who asserts that he is not the owner.

Thus, once possession is established, ownership is presumed in favour of the possessor unless disproved.

3. Conditions for the Application of Section 113For invoking Section 113, the following conditions must be satisfied:

• Possession is not prima facie wrongful
  The possession of the plaintiff or claimant must appear lawful or legitimate.
• Title of the opposite party is not proved
  The defendant or the person denying ownership must fail to establish a superior title.

Only when these two conditions are fulfilled does the presumption under Section 113 arise.

4. Nature of Possession

• The possession referred to under this section means present or actual possession, not merely juridical or constructive possession.
• Such possession raises a legal presumption of ownership in favour of the person in possession of the property.

5. Nature of Presumption

• The presumption under Section 113 is a presumption of law.
• Although a similar presumption may arise under Section 119, that presumption is a presumption of fact, which is discretionary and limited in scope.
• Section 119 applies only where there is no clear or where there is conflicting evidence regarding possession, whereas Section 113 creates a statutory presumption.

6. Conclusion
Section 113 reinforces the legal importance of possession by shifting the burden of proof onto the person who denies ownership. It promotes certainty and fairness in property disputes by protecting lawful possession, while still allowing rebuttal through proof of a better title.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Burden of Proof as to Relationship in the Cases of Partners, Landlord and Tenant, Principal and Agent [Section 112]
1. IntroductionIn legal proceedings, it often becomes necessary to establish the existence or continuance of certain relationships such as partnership, landlord–tenant, or principal–agent. These relationships have significant legal consequences, particularly in matters involving rights, liabilities, and obligations of the parties. Section 112 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down a clear rule regarding the burden of proof in such cases.

2. Statutory Provision under Section 112
Section 112 provides that:

• When the question arises whether persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and
• it is shown that they have been acting as such,

then the burden of proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand, in those relationships lies on the person who asserts the denial or cessation of such relationship.
Thus, once the existence of a relationship is established by conduct, its continuance is presumed.

3. Scope and Rationale
This provision is based on the presumption of continuity of human affairs. The law assumes that a relationship, once shown to exist, continues unless evidence is produced to the contrary. Although Section 112 expressly refers to three relationships—partnership, tenancy, and agency—the underlying principle is of general application and may extend to other similar relationships.

4. Presumption of Continuity of Relationship

• If persons have been shown to act as partners, it is presumed that the partnership continues.
• If parties have acted as landlord and tenant, the tenancy is presumed to subsist.
• If parties have acted as principal and agent, the agency is presumed to continue.

The presumption operates until the person denying the relationship proves that it has either never existed or has lawfully come to an end.

5. Burden of Proof

• The burden of proof lies on the party who denies the relationship or claims that it has ceased.
• A mere assertion is not sufficient; the party must lead evidence to establish non-existence or termination of the relationship.

Illustrative Applications:

• In a landlord–tenant dispute, the burden to prove sub-letting initially lies on the landlord. However, if the landlord proves that a third party is in exclusive possession of the premises, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that it is not a case of sub-letting.
• In disputes relating to partnership or agency, the burden to disprove the relationship or deny ownership arising from such relationship lies on the party who makes such denial.

6. Nature of Presumption
The presumption under Section 112 is a presumption of law, not merely of fact. It operates mandatorily once the foundational facts—namely, conduct indicating the relationship—are established.

7. Conclusion
Section 112 plays a crucial role in maintaining certainty and stability in legal relationships. By presuming the continuance of relationships such as partnership, tenancy, and agency, it prevents parties from arbitrarily denying established relations and ensures that the burden of proof rests on the person who seeks to challenge the existing legal position.