Presumption as to documents thirty years old
Section 92 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with presumption as to documents 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 The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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.--The Explanation to section 80 shall also apply to this section.
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 shall be proper.
(b) A produces deeds relating to landed property of which he is the mortgagee. The mortgagor is in possession. The custody shall be 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 shall be proper.
Section 92, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 90 Presumption as to documents thirty years old Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Syeda Rahimunnisa vs Malan Bi (dead) by Lrs. Etc
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 90, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court cannot exercise second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure without formulating a substantial question of law that satisfies the test of being debatable, not previously settled by binding authority, materially affecting the parties' rights, and arising from pleadings and sustainable findings of fact. Questions that are essentially factual in nature, even if formulated as questions of law, do not constitute substantial questions of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC. Furthermore, the High Court has no jurisdiction to remand a case to the trial court for de novo trial in a second appeal unless the party seeking remand has explicitly raised such ground before the first appellate court, the first appellate court has recorded findings on such ground, and the High Court has formulated a substantial question of law on the issue of remand. Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court, when based on evidence and not perverse, are binding on the High Court and cannot be set aside in second appeal merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence.
On this section: Regarding the presumption that applies to documents over 30 years old with regard to execution and attestation. One of the substantial questions formulated by the High Court concerned the application of this Section to a gift deed (Ex.A.2), but the Supreme Court found this question was not material to the main dispute.
-
Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 90, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For a conviction under Section 376 IPC based on false promise of marriage, the court must find clear and convincing evidence that the accused harboured mala fide intentions and made a false promise of marriage with the sole objective of seducing the victim into sexual acts from the very inception of the relationship. Mere breach of a promise to marry, or failure to fulfil a promise due to unforeseen circumstances or changed intentions during the course of the relationship, does not constitute rape unless the deception was deliberate and predatory from the beginning. The victim's age, maturity, voluntary participation, lack of resistance, and continued hope of marriage are relevant factors in determining whether consent was genuinely given or obtained through deception.
On this section: Doctrine of consent obtained under misconception of fact; the court emphasised that consent given under misconception of fact is invalid only if the accused knew or had reason to believe that the consent was obtained due to such misconception
-
P.K. Sajeev v. Eldho P. Mathew
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 90, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
HC Final Order order-2.pdf 2023-01-12 DATE VERIFIED. Kerala DB Mustaque/Shoba Annamma Eapen. R.C.Rev. 82/2022. CR. A 1963 rent deed produced from proper custody is presumed genuine under IEA 90 (ancient document; signature/genuineness without examining the executants). That concludes landlord-tenant relationship and the denial of title is not bona fide. Map iea 90 + BSA 92 successor (near-identical 0.9346). Do not pad Kerala Rent Control Act 11.
On this section: Successor of IEA 90 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9346). The thirty-year proper-custody presumption carries to BSA 92.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 92
What have the courts held on Section 92 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Syeda Rahimunnisa vs Malan Bi (dead) by Lrs. Etc (03 Oct 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 90, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Regarding the presumption that applies to documents over 30 years old with regard to execution and attestation. One of the substantial questions formulated by the High Court concerned the application of this Section to a gift deed (Ex.A.2), but the Supreme Court found this question was not material to the main dispute. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 92 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 92, section 92 BSA, section 92 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type bsa troop 92. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Syeda Rahimunnisa vs Malan Bi (dead) by Lrs. Etc (03 Oct 2016).
What should I read with Section 92 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 80 (Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, and other documents), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IEA 90 (Presumption as to documents thirty years old), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 92 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 92 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 92, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.