Evidence Act Sec.90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old = 30 years Old presumption- Reg. Gift Deed presumption - how to recon 30 years whether from the date of filing in court or at the time of tendering in evidence - Apex court held that at the time of tendering evidence - 2015 S.C (1/2015) MSK LAW REPORTS 14

 30 years Old presumption-  Reg. Gift Deed presumption - how to recon 30 years whether from the date of filing in court or at the time of tendering in evidence - Apex court held that at the time of tendering evidence -  90. 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  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. The law surrounding the date of computation of the  elapse  of  thirty-years stands long-settled, since the verdict of  the  Privy  Council  in  Surendra Krishna Roy v. Mirza Mahammad Syed Ali Mutawali AIR 1936 PC 15,  which  held that the period of thirty years is to be reckoned, not from  the  date  upon which the Deed is filed in Court but from the date on which, it having  been tendered in evidence, its genuineness or otherwise becomes the  province  of proof.  Most  often  where  the   Courts countenance document which has been in existence for thirty years  or  more, the likelihood of either of the attestators thereof being  alive  is  rather remote.   Once it is satisfactorily  proved  that  the  document  is  thirty years or more in age, Section 90 thereupon dispenses  with  the  formalities of producing the executant and or the attestators thereto. The first and fatal stumbling block of the Appellant's case, then,  is that at the time of tendering of the Gift Deed before the Trial  Court,  the thirty-year maturation period provided by Section 90 was not satisfied,  the Gift Deed having been tendered in evidence  after  around  29  and  one-half years, since he had alluded to it in the course of  the  Defendant/Appellant examining himself  unlike  the  stage  of  pleadings  this  incontrovertibly partook the nature of tendering evidence.  While clarifying law as we have striven to do above,  since  the  Gift Deed in question was tendered  in  evidence  five  months  prior  to  having become thirty years old, the Appeal is devoid of merits. - 2015 S.C (1/2015) MSK LAW REPORTS 14 

Popular posts from this blog

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more