Presumption as to documents thirty years old
Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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.
(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.
Section 90, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 92 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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
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
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
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
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: A document more than thirty years old produced from proper custody is presumed genuine under IEA 90; the holder need not examine the executants (P.K. Sajeev).
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… & Ors., <sup>8</sup> while dealing with a similar argument regarding applicability of Section 90 in the case of proof of will, held as follows: "At the same time we cannot accept the submission on behalf of the Respondents as well that merely because the will was more than 30 years old, a presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('Evidence Act' for short) ought to be drawn that the document has been duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed and attested. As held by this Court in Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh reported in 2009 (3) SCC 687, a presumption regarding …
-
… The Deed of Patta (Exhibit-A) is a registered document/instrument. The document enjoys the presumption, being more than thirty years old, in terms of Section 90<sup>6</sup> of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872<sup>7</sup> . Moreover, the plaintiff had not impleaded M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited as a party to the civil suit. <sup>5</sup> We have taken these dates from the translated copy of the Deed of Patta (Exhibit-A), assuming them to be correct. <sup>6</sup> …
-
… Both the trial court as well as the appellate court failed to notice that the documents were not properly proved as per law. As per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act (Old Act), being the mortgage deed, it must be proved by examining any one of the attesting witnesses. Even presumption under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act will be available only in respect of the original document and not the certified copies. These two documents are only certified copies. So, the evidentiary value of these documents was not properly appreciated, either by the trial court or the appellate …
Questions about Section 90
What have the courts held on Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Syeda Rahimunnisa vs Malan Bi (dead) by Lrs. Etc (03 Oct 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: 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 90 of the Indian Evidence Act?
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: IEA 90, section 90 IEA, section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. People searching for it also type evidence act 90a and indian evidence act 90. 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 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 81 (Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament and other documents), so none of them can safely be read on its own. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 92 (Presumption as to documents thirty years old), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 90, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.