The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.
Explanation & Origin
Actori incumbit onus probandi is a legal maxim in Latin. Every plaintiff at law or complainant at equity, must show a good title or claim before he can prevail in his suit.
The general principle that a party who brings up a particular issue is the one who has the burden of proof comes from Latin phrase actori incumbit onus probandi.
It is not unique to investor-state arbitration , as it comes from legal tradition in Roman , common and civil law countries. Numerous dispute resolution bodies , including the PCIJ (Permanent Court of International Justice) , ICJ (International Court of Justice) and WTO (World Trade Organisation) have recognised this principle. It is a principle required to ensure a fair trial , as it ensures that both claimant and respondent must substantiate any factual allegations made.
The claimant bears the burden of proof , which has to prove , the aspects of their claim.
In civil proceeding , court leads the investigation , but it has to be done by the plaintiff , who is obliged to submit to the court all the proof and evidence he/she has got. Mere filling of a case is not enough for winning a case , but also support it with strong and enough evidence which would convince the jury.
In criminal proceedings the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor. The scope and the subject matter of burden of proof could include the issues related to evidence as well as pleadings.
In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. A “preponderance of the evidence” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” are different standards, requiring different amounts of proof.
Kuthalinga Nadar vs. D.D.Murugesan [18 October, 2011]
In this case , legal maxim Actori incumbit onus probandi is used to render judgement. Second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff according to him the suit second item property (7 cents) forms part of suit first item property. According to the plaintiff , the defendant interfered with the enjoyment of the second suit item (7 cents). The court said that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to prove that Rama Nadar (Plaintiff’s vendor’s vendor) had owned 27 cents of land , so the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Madras.
M/S Ram Lal Bansiwal & Sons vs. Sh. Prem Gupta [31 October, 2011]
Even in cases which are uncontested, the propounder does not get absolved of his duty to establish the relevant facts, which constitute the genesis of his claim, by some credible evidence. The rule of law is ‘actori incumbit onus probandi’ i.e. the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff or the prosecution. Mere absence of the adversary does not ipsofacto means that he or she has acquiesced in the existence of or the truth of the facts pleaded in the plaint. Such absence of defendant does not by itself justify a presumption that the plaintiff’s case is true.
Sh. Kedar Nath Kohli vs Sh. Sardul Singh [2003 VIII AD Delhi 313]
The rule of law is ‘actori incumbit onus probandi’ i.e. the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff or the prosecution. The plaintiff’s case has to stand on its own legs and plaintiff cannot claim his claim to be established on account of the weakness of the defendant’s case.
Sh. Kalyan Kumar Basu vs Sh. Veer Singh [AIR 142 Cal 360]
In cases where the defence of the defendant has been struck off, the propounder does not get absolved of its duty to establish the relevant facts, which constitute the genesis of its claim, by some credible evidence. The rule of law is ‘actori incumbit onus probandi’ i.e. the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. Merely because the right of the defendant to file written statement has been stuck off, it does not ipso facto means that the averments made by the plaintiff are deemed to be accepted as correct. Such absence of the defendant does not by itself justify a presumption that the plaintiff’s case is true.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje