2. Doubt and Certainty:

The basic rule that resolves the conflict between doubt and certainty is contained in the principle:* “A belief amounting to conviction cannot be caused to disappear by a doubt”.

The rule is based on a Quranic verses: “Most of them follow naught but conjecture. Assuredly, conjecture can by no means take the place of truth” (10:37). The Prophet (peace by upon him) also rejected entertaining doubts in the face of valid abolution (wudu). The rule thus discards the effect of doubt that disturbs the original position. This provides guidance where discretion or personal judgement and subjective evidence are relied upon; the rule is of great significance in the event of controversy on rights and obligations of contending parties in the absence of a proof on either side. The benefit of doubt arising out of a controversial position can never go to a person on whom the onus of proof lies; thus the position of an indebted person even after his death will not be affected by doubt as to a probable discharge of debt.

Similarly a claim as to the discharge of a debt will not be rejected on the basis of presumption to the contrary. A contract between two parties will be treated as binding even though there may be reasons to doubt its Fait Du jour. The rule, if read with its following subrules, provides a broader canvas of its application.

(a) *“As to incorporeal matters that do not prove themselves, the basic principle (presumption) is that they do not exist”: so that if between the active partner and the financier there be a dispute as to profit, the word of the active partner will be taken, and the financier may lead evidence to prove the actual profit”

In case a firm declares a particular amount of income during the year this will have to be accepted by the Income Tax authorities in the absence of an evidence to the contrary. Thus doubts of the assessee’s statement cannot be unilaterally or arbitrarily sustained unless the income statement filed by the assessee is proved to be containing discrepancies. Business partners whether individual or banks will also be required to accept it for purpose of sharing the profit. The rejection of this declaration would require convincing proof.

In the case of a dispute over a defective merchandise the above sub-rule requires presumption of defect occurrence after sale unless the buyer could prove prior presence thereof.

Similarly, a partner has no right to assume a minimum rate of profit earned by his business partner and claim his share in that profit as different from the amount stated to have been actually earned by the partner. The sub-rule provides that in case the working partner declares a certain amount of profit no more will bpresumed unless the contrary is proved to be a fact

(b) The above sub-rule is further strengthened by another sub-rule that *“no reliance (should be made) on mere imagination”.

(c) **Another rule is that of “freedom from obligation: so that if one destroys the property of another, and they differ as to the extent of damage, the word of the person destroying may be taken, but the owner of the property may bring evidence to prove the excess.”

Thus in case of loss in business a partner cannot allege wilfuneglect and require the latter to indemnify him for the loss, unless he proves the contrary. Failing this proof the partner will not bpersonally made liable to the loss nor to indemnify the othe partner. Any doubt affecting his position of freedom from liabilitwill be untenable. No arbitrary judgement of the contender woul be acceptable.