LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Section 46 of the Evidence Act – Application – Alternative Situations
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is important to recognise that this provision which is stated as a compendium has its ramifications such that different conditions for its application are accommodated... It seems clear that the entire implication of section 46 is better understood if it is recognised that it provides for alternative situations... the plaintiff need not have lands or distinct boundary demarcations which surround or almost completely surround the land in dispute. He may just, in the alternative, have or occupy land connected, by virtue of its similarity (in user), with the land in dispute with respect to which acts are done, that it may be possible to infer that what is true of the ownership of that land is likely to be true of the land in dispute.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"It is important to recognise that this provision which is stated as a compendium has its ramifications such that different conditions for its application are accommodated... It seems clear that the entire implication of section 46 is better understood if it is recognised that it provides for alternative situations... the plaintiff need not have lands or distinct boundary demarcations which surround or almost completely surround the land in dispute. He may just, in the alternative, have or occupy land connected, by virtue of its similarity (in user), with the land in dispute with respect to which acts are done, that it may be possible to infer that what is true of the ownership of that land is likely to be true of the land in dispute."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Section 46 of the Evidence Act provides alternative situations for proving title by possession of connected land. The plaintiff need not have lands that surround or almost surround the disputed land. They may occupy land connected by similarity in user to the disputed land. From acts done on the connected land, the court may infer that ownership of that land likely extends to the disputed land. The provision is compendious—accommodating different conditions. The inference requires a rational connection between the two parcels. The similarity in user must be established. The principle facilitates proof of title where boundaries are unclear. The court must be satisfied that the inference is reasonable. The burden remains on the plaintiff to prove the connection.
