The consent rule, formerly used, remains abolished. The plaintiff need not prove an actual entry on, or possession of, the premises demanded, or receipt of any profits thereof, or any lease, entry, or ouster, except as hereinafter provided. But it shall be sufficient for him to show a right to the possession of the premises at the time of the commencement of the suit.
§ 8.01-139.What proof by plaintiff is sufficient.
Chapter 3. Actions · Article 14. Ejectment · Last amended 1977 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceSection 8.01-139 confirms the old ejectment consent rule stays abolished and relieves the plaintiff of proving actual entry, possession, receipt of profits, lease, or ouster, requiring instead only proof of a right to possession when the suit began.
Full Text of § 8.01-139
Plain-English Summary
Section 8.01-139 strips away several historical proof requirements that once made ejectment cumbersome. The “consent rule,” a procedural fiction formerly used in ejectment practice, remains abolished under this statute.
Because of that, the plaintiff does not have to prove an actual entry onto the premises, actual possession of them, receipt of any profits from them, or any lease, entry, or ouster — except where some other provision of the ejectment statutes specifically requires it. Instead, it is enough for the plaintiff to show a right to possession of the premises as of the time the suit was commenced.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does an ejectment plaintiff have to prove actual entry onto the property?
No. Section 8.01-139 relieves the plaintiff of proving actual entry, possession, receipt of profits, or any lease, entry, or ouster, except as otherwise provided elsewhere in the ejectment statutes.
What is the “consent rule” the statute says remains abolished?
It was a procedural fiction formerly used in ejectment practice. Section 8.01-139 confirms it stays abolished, meaning plaintiffs are not bound by that older, more technical framework.
What does a plaintiff need to prove under this section?
A right to the possession of the premises at the time the suit was commenced — a considerably lighter burden than the older common-law proof requirements the statute dispenses with.
Are there any exceptions requiring proof of ouster?
Yes. The statute preserves exceptions “as hereinafter provided,” and Section 8.01-141 is one such exception — it requires a plaintiff suing a cotenant to prove actual ouster or an equivalent act.
Why did the law eliminate these older proof requirements?
They were tied to historical procedural fictions in ejectment practice that added complexity without bearing on the real question in the case: whether the plaintiff currently has the right to possess the property.
Amendment History
Code 1950, § 8-809; 1977, c. 617.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: consent rule ejectment virginiaproof required ejectment virginiaright to possession at commencement of suitwhat plaintiff must prove ejectment virginia