Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 110: Presumption of title as a result of possession arises only where the facts disclose that no title vests in any party. Where possession of plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful, and his title is not proved, it certainly does not mean that because a man has title over some land, he is necessarily in possession of it. It in fact means that, if at any time a man with title was in possession of said property, the law allows the presumption that such possession was in continuation of the title vested in him. Thus, all that S. 110 provides for is that where apparent title is with the plaintiffs, then in order to displace said claim of apparent title and to establish good title in himself, it is incumbent upon defendant to establish by satisfactory evidence the circumstances that favour defendant’s version. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof, both forward and backward, can be raised under S. 110, Evidence Act, 1872. [State of A. P. v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. (2013) 9 SCC 319 (Civil Appeal No. 6690 of 2004, decided on February 21, 2013)]
Posted on: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 06:44:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015