Evidence Act, 1872

— Ss. 101 & 102 and 106 — Reversal of burden of proof — When permissible — Hardship in proving the affirmative of the issue and possession of original materials — Relevance — In present case respondent-plaintiff alleging that sale deed concerned was forged, fabricated and void — Trial Judge instead of placing initial onus of proof on respondent-plaintiff to prove the allegation of forgery and fabrication, placing initial burden of proof on appellant-defendant to disprove the said allegation and establish genuineness of said sale deed on the ground that <169>it was always difficult to prove the invalidity of a document<170> — Unsustainability — Held, ordinarily burden of proving a fact rests on party which substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue — Difficulties which may be faced by a party to a lis can never be determinative of party on whom burden of proof would lie — With a view to prove forgery or fabrication in a document, possession of the original by the defendant would not change the legal position — A party in possession of a document can always be directed to produce the same — Hence, trial Judge therefore posed unto himself a wrong question and arrived at a wrong answer, (2006) 5 SCC 558-A

Evidence Act, 1872

— Ss. 101 to 110 — <169>Burden of proof<170> and <169>onus of proof<170> — Distinction between, and meanings of, explained, (2006) 5 SCC 558-B

Evidence Act, 1872

— S. 111 — Applicability — Need to establish existence of relationship of active confidence before burden of proof can be shifted under S. 111, (2006) 5 SCC 558-C