[S.90 Evidence Act] Mere Age Of Document Not Conclusive Proof Of Its Execution, Prima Facie Evidence Required: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that the mere age of a document does not serve as conclusive proof of its due execution.

The Court emphasised that prima facie proof is necessary to establish that a document is thirty years old to raise a presumption under Section 90 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, though this presumption remains rebuttable.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “Mere age of the document is not a conclusive proof of its due execution. At least a prima facie proof is necessary to show that the document is thirty years old, for raising the presumption under Section 90, though it is a rebuttable presumption. The word may in this section indicate that the Court may draw a presumption or it may not draw a presumption.”

Section 90 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody deemed proper by the Court, it may presume the document's signatures and every other part to be in the handwriting of the person it purports to be from, and that it was duly executed and attested.

In the case at hand, the Plaintiff sought adjudication of right, title, and interest and delivery of Khas possession of the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit, stating that the settlement was not for agricultural purposes but for homestead, requiring mandatory registration as per Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act, applicable only in agricultural leases. The claim over the land based on Hukumnama was raised for the first time in the suit and not in the proceeding under Section 71 A. The appeal against this dismissal was also dismissed, leading to the current second appeal.

The main issues framed by the court included whether the lower courts had erroneously discarded the Hukumnama dated 7.1.1950, a 30-year-old document, and whether they failed to consider the document's effect and legality.

The court observed in its judgement, “On perusal of the Judgment rendered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court this Court is of the view that sound reasons have been assigned for not accepting Hukumnama as a document of title. There was no specific pleading with respect to settlement of land and the said unregistered Hukumnama surfaced for the first time during trial. It was for these reasons and also considering the nature of land being not agricultural, suit was dismissed by the both the learned Courts below.”

Additionally, the court noted that the Plaintiffs had not provided any other document of title to support their claim for recovery of possession. Mutation entries or revenue records do not confer or extinguish the title.

Based on these considerations, the Jharkhand High Court upheld the findings of the lower courts and dismissed the second appeal.

Case Title: Sanjeeda Begam V. Md Eqbal

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 134

Click Here To Read Judgement