INTRODUCTION

Presumptions are inferences which are drawn by the court with respect to the existence of
certain facts. When certain facts are presumed to be in existence the party in whose favor
they are presumed to exist need not discharge the burden of proof with respect to it. This is
an exception to the general rule that the party which alleges the existence of certain facts has
the initial burden of proof but presumptions do away with this requirement.
Presumptions can be defined as an affirmative or negative inference drawn about the truth or
falsehood of a fact by using a process of probable reasoning from what is taken to be granted.
A presumption is said to operate where certain fact are taken to be in existence even there is
no complete proof. A presumption is a rule where if one fact which is known as the primary
fact is proved by a party then another fact which is known as the presumed fact is taken as
proved if there is no contrary evidence of the same. It is a standard practice where certain
facts are treated in a uniform manner with regard to their effect as proof of certain other
facts. It is an inference drawn from facts which are known and proved. Presumption is a rule
which is used by judges and courts to draw inference from a particular fact or evidence unless
such an inference is said to be disproved.
Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with three categories of presumptions:
Discretionary Presumptions
Mandatory Presumptions
Conclusive Proof
The Sections of the Indian Evidence Act which deal with Discretionary Presumptions relating to
documents are sections 86, 87, 88, 90 and 90-A. These Presumptions are those in which the
words may presume are used in the sections and the words may presume is used signifies
that the courts of law have discretion to decide as to whether a presumption is allowed to be
raised or not. In the case of such presumptions the courts of law will presume that a fact is
proved unless and until it is said to be disproved before the court of law or it may call for proof
of a fact brought before it. The Sections of the Indian Evidence Act which deal with Mandatory
Presumptions are Section 79, 80, 80-A, 81, 82, 83 85 and 89. These Presumptions are those in
which the words shall presume is used. In case of such presumptions the courts of law will
presume that a fact before it is proved until and unless it is disproved. The words shall
presume signify that the courts have to mandatorily raise a presumption and such a
presumption which is raised shall be considered to be proved unless and until the
presumption is said to be disproved and there is no discretion left to the court therefore there
is no need for call of proof in this case. It is like command of the legislature to the court to
raise a presumption and the court has no choice but to do it. The similarity between
discretionary and mandatory presumptions is that both are rebuttable presumptions.
Conclusive Proof is defined under Section 4 that one fact is said to be conclusive proof of
another fact when the court shall on the proof of a certain fact regard another fact to be
proved and the court shall not allow any evidence which shall to be given for the purpose of
disproving such a fact. Conclusive Proof is also known as Conclusive Evidence. It gives certain
facts an artificial probative effect by law and no evidence shall be allowed to be produced
which will combat that effect. It gives finality to the existence of a fact which is sought to be
established. This generally occurs in cases where it is in the larger interest of society or it is
against the governmental policy. This is an irrebuttable presumption.
The general rule about burden of proof is that it lies on the party who alleges the fact to prove
that the fact exists. But a party can take advantage of the presumptions which are in his

favor. If the prosecution can prove that the conditions of a presumption are fulfilled and such a
presumption is of rebuttable nature then the burden of prove to rebut it is always on the party
who wants to rebut it.
PRESUMPTIONS AS TO DOCUMENTS
SECTION 79 : PRESUMPTIONS AS TO GENUINENESS OF CERTIFIED COPIES
The court shall presume {to be genuine} every document purporting to be a certificate,
certified copy or the document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any
particular fact that which purports to be duly certified by any officer {of the Central
Government or of a State government, or by any officer {in the State of Jammu and Kashmir}
who is duly authorized thereto by the Central Government}
Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in
the manner directed by law in that behalf.
The court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be
signed or certified held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such
paper.

INGREDIENTS
The court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be
A certificate
Certified copy or
Other document
Which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and;
Which purports to be duly certified by
Any officer of the central government or
Of a state government, or
By any officer in the state of Jammu and Kashmir who is duly authorized thereto by the central
government.
Proviso- Such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the
manner directly by law in that behalf.
The court shall also presume that any officers by whom such document purports to be signed
or certified, held when he signed it, the official character which he claim in such manner.
COMMENT
Section 79 to 90 deals with presumptions as to documents.
This section proceeds upon the maximum omnia proesumunlur rite esse acta. It means all
acts are presumed to be rightly done. Though the courts are directed to draw a presumption
in favor of official certificate, it is not conclusive presumption, it is rebuttable it is a prima
facie presumption; and if the certificates-etc. not correct, its incorrectness may be shown.

BHINKA V. CHARAN SINGH1

The Supreme Court held that under section 79 a court is bound to draw the presumption that
a certified copy of a document is genuine and that the officer, signed it in the official
character which he claim in the said document but if the original of a public document is
sought to be tendered in evidence it must be proven in the manner required by law as any
other documents required to be proved under section 67 and 68 of the act.
This presumption is liable to be rebutted. This section imperatively directs the court to raise a
presumption. The terms of section 114 are only permissive. The words shall presume
indicate that if no other evidence is given the court is bound to find that the facts mentioned
in the section exist. They occur in section 79-85 and section 89. These sections are
mandatory.
SECTION 80 : PRESUMPTION AS TO DOCUMENTS PRODUCED AS RECORD OF EVIDENCE
Whenever any document is produced before any court, purporting to be a record or
memorandum of the evidence or of any part of the evidence given by a witness in a judicial
proceeding or before any officer authorized by law to take such evidence, or to be statement
of confession by any prisoner or accused, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be
signed by any judge or Magistrate, or any such officer as aforesaid, the court shall presume: That the document is genuine that any statements as to the circumstances under
which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, be true, and that such
evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.
INGREDIENTS
As toA record of evidence in judicial proceedings; or
A confession taken in accordance with law and purporting to be signed by a judge or
Magistrate or other officer authorized by law, the court shall presumeThat the document is genuine;
That any statement as to the circumstances
Such evidence or confession was duly taken
COMMENT
The presumption under section 80 embraces only the genuineness of the document, but that
it was duly taken and given under the circumstances recorded in the document. The
presumptions under this section are not conclusive; they may be rebutted.
This section is applicable: To a document which purports to be a record or memorandum of the evidence given by a
witness in a judicial or before an official authorized by law to take such evidence and
To a statement or confession by an accused person, taken in accordance with law, and signed
by any judge or Magistrate.

1 AIR 1959 SC 960

The section merely gives legal sanction to the maxim omnia praesumuntur rile esse acta (acts
are presumed to be rightly done) with regard to documents taken in the course of a judicial
proceedings.
EMPEROR V. SURAJ BALI2
A dying declaration, which has been recorded by a Magistrate, can be tendered in evidence
without the magistrate who recorded it being called.
When a deposition taken in open court or a confession is taken by a magistrate, there is a
degree of publicity and solemnity, which affords a sufficient guarantee for the presumption
that everything was formally, correctly and honestly done.
THE EMPEROR V. HALWANI
A confession made before a magistrate, did not bear his certificate, stating his belief that it
was freely and voluntarily made, as required by section 164(3) or Cr. P.C. it was held that it
could not be admitted under this section without proof of its having been so made.
RAMCHIT RAJBHAR V. STATE OF W.B.3
By the provision in this section, statements recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. are presumed
to be genuine, but not a guarantee of truth.
SECTON 81 : PRESUMPTIONS AS TO GAZETTES, NEWSPAPERS, PRIVATE ACTS OF PARLIAMENT
AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
The court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London
Gazette, or {any official gazette, or the government gazette} of any colony, dependency of
possession of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private
act of Parliament of the United Kingdom} printed by the Queen printer, and of every
document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such
document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper
custody.
INGREDIENTS
The court shall presume the following documents genuine
All documents purporting to be Landon Gazette
All documents purporting to be official gazette
All documents purporting to be government gazette of any (a) colony (b) dependence or (c)
possession of the British Crown.
All documents purporting to be newspaper or journal; or to be a copy of Private Act of
Parliament of the United Kingdom printed by the queen printer
Every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person ifSuch document is kept substantially in the form required by law.

2 AIR 1934 ALL 340

3 1992 CRILJ 372

Produced from proper custody.

COMMENT
Government gazettes or newspapers or journals or copies of Private Acts of Parliament printed
by the Kinds printer are prima facie proof of their gaudiness.
LUXMI RAJ SHETTY V. STATE OF T.N.4
The presumption of genuineness attached under this section to a newspaper cannot be
treated as proof of the facts reported therei, and the statement of a fact contained in a
newspaper is merely hearsay, therefore, inadmissible in evidence.
SECTION 82 : PRESUMPTIONS AS TO DOCUMENTS ADMISSIBLE IN ENGLAND WITHOUT PROOF
OF SEAL OR SIGNATURE
When any document is produced before any court, purporting to be document which by the
law in force for the time being in England or Ireland would etc.be admissible in proof of any
particular in any court of Justice in England or Ireland, without proof of the seal or stamp or
signature authenticating it or of the judicial or official character claimed by the person by
whim it purports to be signed, the court shall presume that such seal, stamp or signature is
genuine, and that the persons signing it held at the time when he signed it, the judicial or
official character which he claims and the document shall be admissible for the same purpose
for which it would be admissible in England or Ireland.
INGREDIENTS
The court in India shall presume the documents genuine, which would be admissible in
English or Irish court without proof of
Its seal or stamp or signature, or
The official character of the person signing it, the court shall presume
That the seal etc. is genuine; and
That the persons signing it held that official position which he claims in it
COMMENT
This section enables the court to recognize presumptions with regard to certain classes of
documents which are recognized in English courts
Documents which without proof of the seal or signature or the official character of the person
by him they purport to have been signed are admissible in England will be admissible in
courts in India.
SECTION 83 : PRESUMPTIONS AS TO MAPS OR PLANS MADE BY AUTHORITY OR GOVERNMENT
The court shall presume that maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of { the
central government were so made, and are accurate; but maps or plans made for the purpose
of any class must be proved to be accurate.
INGREDIENTS

4 AIR 1988 SC 1274

The section shall presume that the maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of
the central government or any state government
Were so made; and
Are accurate
But maps or plans made for the purpose of any cause must be proved to be accurate.
COMMENT
The presumption as to accuracy is limited only to maps or plans made under the authority of
government. Such maps or plans contain the result or inquiries made under competent public
authority. In other cases the proof is needed.
RAM KISHORE V. UNION OF INDIA5
When private persons prepare maps no presumption is favor of accuracy can be drawn under
this section.
This section must be read with section 36, which deals with the statements in maps, charts
and plans. These are provable under section 77 and 79 by the production of certified copies.
SECTION 84 : PRESUMPTIONS AS TO COLLECT OF LAWS AND REPORTS OF DECISIONS
The court shall presume the genuineness of every book purporting to be printed or published
under the authority of the Government of any country, and to contain any of the laws of that
country and of every book purporting to contain reports of decisions of the Courts of such
country.
INGREDIENTS
The court shall presume following two kinds of books as genuine:
The book containing law of that country and published under the authority of the Government
of the country
Every book purporting to contain law reports of decisions of the Court of such country.
COMMENT
This section should be read along with section 38, which makes relevant statements as to any
law and ruling in official printed books of any country, dispenses with the proof of the
genuineness of authorized books of any country containing laws and reports of decisions of
courts.
Section 57 authorizes the Courts to take judicial notice of the existence of all laws, and
statutes in India and in the United Kingdom. Section 74 recognizes statutory records to be
public records sector 78 lays down the method of providing the statute passed by the
Legislature.
SECTION 85 : PRESUMPTION AS TO POWER OF ATTORNEY
The court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney and to
have been executed before and authenticated by, a Notary, or any Court, Judge, magistrate

5 AIR 1966 SC 644

Indian Consul or Vice Consul, or representative of the Central Government, was so executed
and authenticated.
SECTION 85 A : PRESUMPTION AS TO ELECTRONIC AGREEMENTS
The court shall presume that every electronic record purporting to be an agreement
containing the digital signatures of the parties was so concluded by affixing the digital
signature of the parties.
SECTION 85 B : PRESUMPTION AS TO ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND DIGITAL SIGNATURES
In any proceedings involving a secure electronic record, the Court shall presume unless
contrary is proved, that the secure electronic record has not been altered since the specific
point of to which the secure status relates.
In any proceedings involving secure digital signature, the court shall presume unless the
contrary is proved that:
The secure digital signature is affixed by subscriber with the intention of signing or approving
the electronic record;
Except in the case of secure electronic record or a secure digital signature, nothing in this
section shall create any presumption, relating to authenticity and integrity of the electronic
record or any digital signature.
SECTION 85 C : PRESUMPTION AS TO DIGITAL SIGNATURE CERTIFICATES
The Court shall presume, unless contrary is proved, that the information listen in a Digital
Signature Certificate is correct; except for information specified as subscribe information;
which has not been verified, if the certificate was accepted by the subscriber.
INGREDIENTS
The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power-of-attorney,
It have been executed before the authenticated by (a) A Notary Public (b) any Court (c) Judge
(d) Magistrate (e) Indian Consul (f) Vice-Consul or (g) representative of the Central
Government.
It was to so executed and authenticated.
COMMENT
The court shall presume the due execution and authentication of a power-of-attorney when
executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court Judge Magistrate, Indian
consul or Vice Consul, etc.
YOGESH SINGH SOHTA V. NIRANJAN LAL6
The court can presume that Notary Public must have satisfied himself about the competency
of the executant. Presumption applies not merely to local notaries but also those functioning
abroad.
Power of attorney includes any instruments empowering a specified person to act for any in
the name of the person executing it [vide-Indian Stamp Act, Section 2(1)]
6 AIR 1981 DELHI 222

RAJ KUMAR GUPTA V. DES RAJ7

The mere fact that the document had not been drafted or typed out by the executant before
the Notary Public and the fact that the typed matter duly signed by the executant was
presented before the Notary Public, not in any way make the execution and authentication
doubtful.

SECTION 86 : PRESUMPTION AS TO CERTIFIED COPIES OF FOREIGN JUDICIAL RECORDS

The Court may presume that any document purporting to be a certified copy of any judicial
record of {any country not forming part of India} or Her Majestys dominions is genuine and
accurate, if the document purport is to be certified in any manner which is certified by any
representative of the {central government} {in or for} {such country to be the manner
commonly in use in {that country} for the certification of copies of judicial records.
An officer who, with respect to any territory or place not forming part of { Indian or} of Her
Majestys dominions, is Political Agent therefore, as defined in Section 3l, { clause (43) if the
General Clauses Act, 1897 ( 10 of 1987), shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to
be a representative of the { central Government} { in and for the country} comprising that
territory or place.
INGREDIENTS
The Court may presume:
That any document purporting to be a certified copy of any judicial record of any foreign
country as genuine; if
The document purports to be certified in any manner which is certified by any representative
of the Central government in or for such country to be the manner commonly in use in the
country;
The Political Agent of foreign will be that person as defined under section 3(43), of the
General Clauses act, 1897.
The certified copy of the judicial decision must be certified by the Political Agent of that
country.
COMMENT
If a copy of a foreign record purports to be certified in a given way, the Court may presume it
to be genuine and accurate. It however, does not exclude other proof, for, under Section 65
and 66 secondary evidence may be given of public documents, without notice to the adverse
party when the person in possession of documents is out of the reach of, or not subject to, the
process of the Court.
HARANAND V. RAM GOPAL (1989) BOM.LR}
This section contains an instance of documents which section 65 clause (i) seems to refer to.
The provisions of this section are imperative and must be complied with.

7 AIR 1995 H.P. 107

SECTION 87 : PRESUMPTION AS TO BOOKS, MAPS AND HARTS

The court may presume that any book to which it may refer for information on matters of
public or general interest, and that any published map or chart, the statements of which are
relevant facts and which is produced for its inspection, was written and published by the
person and at the time and place, by whom or at which purports to have been written or
published.

INGREDIENTS
The court may presume as to
Any book to which the court may refer on a matter of public or general interest; and
Any published chart or map produced for its inspection, that it was written and published by
the person, and at the time and place, by whom or at which it purports to have been written
or published.
COMMENT
The court may presume that any book to which it may refer for information on matters of
public or general interest or any published chart or map written and published by the person,
and at the time and place by whom it purports to have been written or published.
SECTION 88 : PRESUMPTION AS TO TELEGRAPH MESSAGE
The court may presume that an electronic message, forwarded by the originator through an
electronic mail server to the addressee to whom the message purports to be addressed
correspondence with the message as fed into his computer for transmission; but the Court
shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent.
INGREDIENTS
As to a message forwarded from a telegraph office
The court may presume that it corresponds with the message for transmission at the office
from which it purports to be sent.
But it shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was delivered
for transmission.
COMMENT
The Court may treat telegraphic message received, as if they were the originals sent, with the
exception that a presumption is not to be made to the person, by whom they were delivered
for transmission and, unless the non-production of the originals is accounted for, secondary
evidence of their contents is inadmissible.
The court is forbidden to make any presumption as to the person by whom the telegram was
sent.
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE V. G. JOTHISHANKAR8

8 1993 CRL 3677

The detenus sent a telegram conveying that they were illegally detained but the same was
not taken into consideration, it was held that a telegram is confirmed by a subsequent signed
application, representation or an affidavit, the contents of telegram have no authenticity at all
and the same cannot be taken into consideration.
SECTION 89 : PRESUMPTION AS TO DUE EXECUTION ETC. OF DOCUMENTS NOT PRODUCED
The court shall presume that every document called for and not produced after notice to
produce, was attested, stamped and executed in the manner required by law.
INGREDIENTS
As to a document called and not produced after notice to produce,
The court shall presume that it was duly a) attested b) stamped and c) executed
COMMENT
This section refers only to stamp, execution and attestation of documents. It is restricted to
cases where notice to produce a document is given to a party.
SECTON 90 : PRESUMPTION AS TO DOCUMENTS OF THIRTY YEARS OLD
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 persons handwriting and in case of a document executed
or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the person 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 the circumstances of the particular
case are such as to render such an origin probable.
This explanation applies also to section 81.
ILLUSTRATIONS
A has been in possession of landed property for a long period. He produces from his custody
deeds relating to the land showing hiss titles to it. The custody is proper.
A produces deeds relating to landed property or which he is the mortgagee. The mortgagor is
in possession. The custody is proper.
SECTION 90 A : PRESUMPTION AS TO ELECTRONIC RECORDS FIVE YEAR OLD
Where any at electronic record purporting to be five years old is produced from any custody
which the Court in the case considers proper; the Court may presume that the digital
signature which purports to be the digital signature of any particular person was so affixed by
him or any person authorized by him in this behalf.
Explanation: Electronic records 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 naturally but no custody is improper
if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin or the circumstances of the case are such as to
render such an origin probable.
INGREDIENTS

As to a document proved to be:

thirty years old and
Produced from proper custody
The Court may presume:
That the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the
handwriting of any person, is in that persons handwriting, and
That it was duly executed and attested by the person by purports to be executed and
attested

Documents are in proper custody if they are:

In the place in which; and
Under the care of the person with whom they would naturally be.
COMMENT
In the state amendment made by the Uttar Pradesh in the place of 30 years, 20 years was
inserted in 1954 (w.e.f.30.11.1954). It also applies to Uttaranchal (U.A.) i.e. the period of 20
years should be read in respect of U.A. and U.P. This section is intended to do away with the
inseparable difficulty of providing the handwriting, execution and attestation of documents in
the ordinary way after the lapse of many years. It does away with the strict rule of proof of
private document. (vide Lakh Baruah vs. Padma Kanta Kalita)
PRINCIPLE
When a document is or purports to be more than thirty years old if it be produced from what
the Court considers being proper custody, it may be presumed
That the signature at every other part of such document, which purports to be in the
handwriting of any particular person is in that persons handwriting, and
That it was duly executed ad attested by the person by whom it purports to be executed and
attested.
FATIMA BIBI V. IRFANA BEGAM
The defendant produced fifty years old registered deed of gift; it was held that the burden of
providing that the gift was fraudulent was on the plaintiff. That presumption allowed by this
section is not a presumption which the Court is bound to make and the Court may require the
document to be proved in ordinary manner.
Mr. Taylor says- An ancient deed, which has nothing suspicious about it is presumed to be
genuine without express proof, the witness being presumed dead, and if found in proper
custody and corroborated by evidence of ancient or modern corresponding enjoyment or by
other equivalent or explanatory proof, it will be presumed to have constituted part of the
actual transfer of the property therein mentioned because this the usual course of such
transfer.
BHANWANA V. RARATAN

The period of thirty years is to be reckoned not from the date upon which the document is
filed in Court, but from the date on which, it having been tendered in evidence its
genuineness or otherwise becomes the subject of proof.

RANGU V RAMBHA
The use of word may indicate that the trial Court has discretion either to presume a fact as
proved or to call for proof of it. The presumption is discretionary and not obligatory.
PROPER CUSTODY (EXPLANATION)
The proper custody means the custody so connected with the deed that his possession of it
does not excite any suspicion of fraud. The Section insists only on a satisfactory account of
the origin of the custody and not on the history of the continuance. The provision of the
section read with the explanation insists on a satisfactory account of the origin of the
possession being given by the party, relying upon the documents. The custody might not in
the strictest sense legal custody, but, whether it originated in the right or wrong the origin
must be explained.

CONCLUSION
In raising a presumption an inference is drawn by the Court from certain facts in supersession
of any other mode of proof. The word presumption is not defined in the Evidence Act.
Stephen defines it as a rule of law that Courts and Judges shall draw a particular inference
from a particular fact, or from particular evidence, unless and until the truth of such inference
is disproved. This definition refers to the mandatory presumption and not to the permissive
presumption. In its simplest form a presumption is merely the assumption of the truth of a
fact,either without any premises being - established, as in the presumption of innocence
and sanity, or without complete premises, as in the presumption of theft from the possession
of stolen goods,. Certain presumptions arise in regard to some documents produced as
evidence in Court. These presumptions are dealt with in sections 79 to 90. Some of these
presumptions are obligatory, in the sense that the Court is bound to raise them, e.g., the
presumptions mentioned in sections 79 to 85, and section 89; others are merely permissive in
the sense that the Court may or may not raise them, e.g., the presumptions mentioned in
sections 86 to 88 and 90.
In case of obligatory presumptions the Court is bound to take the fact as
proved until evidence is given to disprove it, and hence in such cases the Court shall presume
a certain fact in regard to a document. In case of permissive presumptions the Court may
consider the facts as proved until the contrary is shown and the Court may presume a certain
fact in regard to a document. In addition to the presumptions specifically mentioned in this set
of sections other presumptions in regard to certain documents might arise under section 114
which is a residuary section dealing with permissive presumptions. The presumptions
mentioned in sections 79 to 90 are not conclusive but rebuttable, while those in sections 41,
112, 113 are irrebuttable as they afford a conclusive proof. Though the Court may, in some
cases, presume certain facts about certain documents, evidence may be given by the party
against whom the presumption operates, that the facts presumed did not or do not in fact
exist. These presumptions are founded upon and are deductions from the principle embodied
in the maxim, omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta, i.e., the presumption that the document
itself is genuine, of course, includes the presumption that the signature and the seal, where
the seal is used, are genuine.

LAW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

185th REPORT
MARCH 2003
In Presumption of genuineness of ancient documents is proposed to apply, in sec. 90, to
documents 20 years old rather than 30 years old as done in other countries. It is also
proposed to introduce subsection (2) to sec. 90 to include registered documents the originals
of which are twenty years old, as done in UP by 1954 Amendment. Sec. 90 raises presumption
as to execution, handwriting and attestation. Sec. 90A is proposed, as done in UP in 1954, in
respect of registered documents, the originals of which are less than twenty years old, to raise
only a presumption of execution.

LATEST CASES
SH. TARA CHAND VS SH. KULDEEP SINGH
DATE: 3RD AUGUST 2016
The arguments urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant no. 3 that original of the Sanad
was not filed, was held to be an argument without merit for various reasons.
The certified copy of the Sanad, being secondary evidence has been proved as Ex.PW4/1,
and which is sufficient proof of ownership of the respondents/plaintiffs inasmuch as ownership
of the suit land of Ministry of Rehabilitation could not be disputed before the Court. Learned
counsel for the appellant/defendant no.3 had very weakly sought to argue the lack of title in
the Ministry of Rehabilitation, however, it is noted that though the appellant/defendant no.3 in
the written statement originally seems to have taken such a plea, however, such plea can be
said to be given up because no issue was got framed by the appellant/defendant no.3 as
regards lack of ownership of the Ministry of Rehabilitation of the suit property as an evacuee
property. In fact there was clear cut finding and conclusion by the courts below that the suit
property is an evacuee property which came to be vested in the Ministry of Rehabilitation and
reference in this regard can be made to para 28 of the judgment of the trial court reproduced,
and which was adopted and accepted as correct by the Court.
The trial court had rightly held that there is presumption as to the genuineness of the certified
copy of public documents being the Sanad, possession proceedings and eviction warrants,
more so because the witnesses of the department which issued these documents admitted to
their existence and issuance of the same on the basis of the files/record maintained by such
department being the Ministry of Rehabilitation.
The argument urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant no.3 that ownership of plaintiff is
not proved as original Sanad was therefore rejected.

SHRIMATI JAIKAL @ GHANSIYA BAI VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE: 19TH NOVEMBER 2015
Shri Prakash Upadhyay, counsel for the applicants. It appears that the applicants have
challenged the order dated 06.10.2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 16225/2015. However, the
applicants have filed the simple copy of that order. Order passed by the Court is to considered
as a public document if it is published in law reports then, it may have a presumption
under Section 84 of the Evidence Act otherwise, it could be produced before any other Court
as a certified copy of that document to be a public document.
According to the provisions of Section 76 of the Evidence Act, certified copy of the order or
judgment is filed because it is a public document. Section 65-E of the Evidence Act does not
provide that the copy of order or judgment available on internet or on website of High Court
can be considered as a certified copy under Section 65-A of the Evidence Act, therefore, at
present the document filed by the applicants cannot be considered as a Public document.