Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law relating to Evidence

Rohan sues Sameer on a bond for money due. Sameer admits that he executed the bond but pleads that Rohan obtained it by fraud, which Rohan denies. If no evidence were given by either side, who would succeed, and on whom does the burden of proving fraud lie?

Rohan would succeed without evidence because the bond is admitted and fraud is not proved, so the burden of proving fraud lies on Sameer. Section 105 puts the burden on the person who would fail if no evidence were given on either side.

  1. ASameer would succeed, so the burden of proving fraud is on Rohan
  2. BRohan would succeed because the bond is not disputed, so the burden of proving fraud is on SameerCorrect
  3. CRohan would succeed, but the burden of proving fraud is on Rohan
  4. DNeither would succeed, so the burden is shared equally

Explanation

Under Section 105 the burden lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given. The execution of the bond is admitted and fraud is unproved, so Rohan would succeed and Sameer would fail. The burden of proving fraud is therefore on Sameer, as shown in the bond illustration to the Section.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law relating to Evidence shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law relating to EvidenceFree diagnostic mock

More Law relating to Evidence questions