Indian Evidence Act
(IEA)
Presumption as to documents thirty years old.
Chapter 5: Of Documentary Evidence
Section: 90
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 purport 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 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. (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.
Uttar Pradesh. - The following amendments have been made in Section 90 and a new Section 90-A has been added vide U.P. Act XXIV of 1954:"1. The existing section shall be renumbered as Section 90 (1) , and (a) For the words "thirty years" the words "twenty years" shall be substituted, and (b) The following shall be inserted thereafter as a new sub-section (2) : (2) Where any such document as is referred to in sub-section (1) was registered in accordance with the law relating to registration of documents and a duly certified copy thereof is produced, 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 by the person by whom it purports to have been executed or attested.‘2. After Section 90, add the following as a new Section 90-A:90A. Presumption as to electronic records five years old. (1) Where any registered document or a duly certified copy thereof or any certified copy of a document which is part of the record of a court of justice, is produced from any custody which the court in the particular case considers proper, the court may presume that the original was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. (2) This presumption shall not be made in respect of any document which is the basis of a suit or of a defence or is relied upon in the plaint or written statement.The explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 90 will also apply to the section."This Explanation applies also to section 81A.] |
[90-A. Presumption as to electronic records five years old. [Inserted by Act 21 of 2000, Section 92 and Sch.II (w.e.f. 17.10.200) .]Where any electronic record, purporting or proved to be five years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the [electronic signature] which purports to be the [electronic signature] [Substituted by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (10 of 2009) , Section 52 (h) for "digital signature"] of any particular person was so affixed by him or any person authorised 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 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 81A.]
