It is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove an actual entry under title, nor the actual receipt of any of the profits of the premises demanded; but it shall be sufficient for the plaintiff to prove a right to the possession of such premises at the time of the commencement of the action, as heir, legatee, purchaser or otherwise.
6-119.Plaintiff's proof - Continued.
Article VI. Ejectment · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 20, 2026
In one sentenceRemoves any need for the plaintiff to prove an actual entry under title or actual receipt of profits, requiring instead only proof of a right to possession of the premises at the time the action began, as heir, legatee, purchaser, or otherwise.
Full Text of 735 ILCS 5/6-119
Plain-English Summary
Older ejectment practice sometimes demanded proof that the plaintiff had physically entered the land under title, or had received profits from it, before recovery was possible. This section removes both of those requirements. The plaintiff need not prove an actual entry under title, nor the actual receipt of any of the premises' profits.
In place of that older proof, the section requires something simpler: proof of a right to possession of the premises at the time the action commenced. The plaintiff may establish that right in whatever capacity applies, as heir, legatee, purchaser, or otherwise, echoing the categories 6-102 lists as qualifying sources of an ejectment claim.
This section works alongside 6-104, which requires that the plaintiff's interest be valid and subsisting at commencement, and 6-120, which similarly removes the need to prove lease, entry, and ouster outside the co-tenant context. Together they simplify what a plaintiff must show to establish the right to recover possession.
Frequently Asked Questions
Must the plaintiff prove having physically entered the land?
No. The section removes any requirement to prove an actual entry under title.
Must the plaintiff prove having received rents or profits from the property?
No. The section also removes any requirement to prove the actual receipt of any of the premises' profits.
What does the plaintiff need to prove instead?
A right to the possession of the premises at the time the action was commenced.
In what capacities can the plaintiff hold that right to possession?
The section lists heir, legatee, or purchaser, and adds "or otherwise," leaving the list open beyond those three examples.
How does this section relate to 6-104's requirement of a valid subsisting interest?
6-104 requires a valid, subsisting interest and a right to recover at commencement; this section confirms that proving a right to possession, without proof of actual entry or profits, satisfies that showing.
Amendment History
(Source: P.A. 82-280.)
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Illinois Compiled Statutes, published by the
Illinois Compiled Statutes, Illinois General Assembly / Legislative Reference Bureau. Last verified July 20, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: proving right to possession ejectment illinoisno need to prove actual entry ejectmentreceipt of profits not required ejectmentheir legatee purchaser proof ejectment