K. Venkat Reddy (Died) By Lrs. vs Kunuthuru Akkamma And Anr. on 22 December, 2005
18. On consideration of the above decisions relied upon by the rival parties, it is clear that though the presumption contemplated under Section 90 of the Evidence Act is confined only as to the execution of the document, but in the light of the observation made by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Bai Sakinabai v. Gulam Rasul (supra), who in turn relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Vallabhadas v. Assistant Collector of Customs AIR 1965 SC 481, and also a decision of the Privy Council relied upon a Division Bench in Bhagwati Prasad v. Musri Lal (supra), it is clear that the presumption as to the genuineness of the contents also can be extended even in the absence of any evidence in the form of oral evidence by examining the persons connected with the said transaction or document. In fact, as per the observations of the Privy Council, the recital consistent with probabilities and circumstances of the case assumes greater importance, and therefore, the recitals of the document have to be examined in the light of the probabilities of the case, and the other circumstances and the material available.