Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter V: Of Documentary Evidence · Presumptions as to documents
Section 90: Presumption as to documents thirty years old
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.
Explanation.––Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable. This Explanation applies also to section 81.
Illustrations
(a) A has been in possession of landed property for a long time. He produces from his custody deeds relating to the land showing his titles to it. The custody is proper.
(b) A produces deeds relating to landed property of which he is the mortgagee. The mortgagor is in possession. The custody is proper. 1. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “Government of India”.
(c) A, a connection of B, produces deeds relating to lands in B’s possession, which were deposited with him by B for safe custody. The custody is proper.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 90
-
P. Anjanappa (D) By Lrs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors.
Issue arose whether the registered release deeds are valid and binding, and if so, what is their legal effect on the membership and share entitlements of plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3; whether the document styled…
-
Rajeev Gupta & Ors. v. Prashant Garg & Ors.
Issue arose whether the suit was barred by limitation; whether the sale deeds were void documents; whether the Will stood admitted in the previous suits and was no longer required to be proved; whether the First…
-
Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. v. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki and Ors
Issue arose whether wife, on her remarriage had any title over the property derived from her first husband, which her son from the second husband, claimed through the series of transactions.
-
Trust v. Radhey
Civil Appeal No. 722 of 2012 The respondents-plaintiffs claimed that they had been granted patta (lease) of the land by Gram Panchayat in the year 1959 and on the basis thereof, they were continuing in possession.…
-
Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi & Ors .
Whether the High Court was correct in holding that owing to the non-production of any document by appellant evincing as to how the sons’ of the seller obtained the suit property in a partition Exhibit A1-registered sale…
- M/s TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. & ORS. ETC. v. M. S.
- Ashutosh Samanta (D) by Lrs. v. Sm. Ranjan Bala
- Saranpal Kaur Anand v. Praduman Singh Chandhok and Others
- Rattan Singh & Ors. v. Nirmal Gill & Ors. Etc.
- Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) Thr. Lrs.& Another v. Shivnath & Others
- Hammad Ahmed v. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
- Om Prakash (Dead) Th. His Lrs. v. Shanti Devi & Ors.
- M.B. Ramesh (D) by Lrs. v. K.M. Veeraje Urs (D) by Lrs. & Ors.
- The State of A.P. & Ors. v. M/S. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co.
- Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr.
- Bharpur Singh & Ors. v. Shamsher Singh
- Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India
- Deshraj v. Bodhraj
- Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India v. Garware Polyster Ltd.
- Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. Sri K.M. Shaffi
- Kacha Kanti Seva Samity and Anr. v. Shri Kacha Kanti Devi and Os.
- Sri Lakhi Baruah and Others v. Sri Padma Kanta Kalita and Others
- Gauri Shanker Sharma Etc. v. State of U.P. Etc.