Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 104 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & ... on 8 October, 2003
14. Before appreciating evidence and deciding the issue, it is im-
perative to discuss the onus of proof in civil trial. In Civil Trial, the
obligation is on the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove his claim
on preponderance of probability against the defendant. As per the
principles of Indian Law, until and unless an exception is created by
law, the burden of proof lies on the person making any claim or as-
serting any fact. A person who asserts a particular fact is required to
affirmatively establish it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.V.E.
Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Vishesaraswami & V.P. Tem-
ple & Anr. (VI (2003) SLT 307, observed that whether a civil or a
criminal case, the anvil for testing of 'proved', 'disproved' and 'not
proved' as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is
one and same. A fact is said to be 'proved' when, if considering the
matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its
existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circum-
stances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
Addagada Raghavamma And Anr vs Addagada Chenchamma And Anr on 9 April, 1963
It was observed in A. Raghavamma & Another vs. Chenchamma &
Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011
It was observed in Rangammal vs. Kuppuswami
and others, Civil Appeal No. 562 of 2003 , observed that burden of
proof lies on person who first asserts the fact and not on the one who
denies that fact to be true. The responsibility of the defendant to
prove a fact to be true would start only when the authenticity of the
fact is proved by the plaintiff.
1