On whom does the burden of proving good faith in transactions where one party is in the relation to active confidence, lie?

Question: On whom does the burden of proving good faith in transactions where one party is in the relation to active confidence, lie?

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [On whom does the burden of proving good faith in transactions where one party is in the relation to active confidence, lie?]

Answer

Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act talks about where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence.

Relations of trust and confidence (i.e. fiduciary relation) include those of parent and child, lawyer and client, spiritual guru and his follower, principal and agent, partner and firm, doctor and patient, persons in authority and those over whom he exercises authority.

In all such cases, the law imposes the duty of good faith upon the person occupying the position of trust and confidence, and he will have to prove that he acted in good faith before he can enforce the transaction against the other party. A contract with a pardanashin woman attracts Section 111.

Illustration I of the section entails, it is said that if a client sells his property to his advocate after that if he tries to set aside the sale on the grounds of fraud then it is the burden of the advocate to prove that the transaction was done in good faith as he was in a position of active confidence.

In the case of Sivamma v. Abdur Rahman [1952 Hyd 668], a blind and illiterate lady executed a sale deed the execution of which was later denied by her the court said that there is a heavy burden on the purchaser to prove that the lady not only agreed but also knew what was being written on the agreement.

Initially, the plaintiff may have to show the relationship of trust and confidence. When this fact is established then the burden is on the accused to prove that there were fairness and no exploitation the plaintiff may then have to show that there was a fraud and no fairness. This was said in the case of Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh [(2006) 5 SCC 558].

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X