Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.28 seconds)The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972
Bai Sakinabai And Ors. vs Gulam Rasul Umarbhai Shaikh on 28 March, 1980
In Bai Sakinabai v. Gulam Rasul (supra) a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court had an occasion to consider similar issue that arises in the present appeal, and in fact, considered how the recitals of an old document of more than 30 years are to be dealt with. In that case, the defendants relied upon Ex.39, which is stated to be a statement made by the plaintiff's predecessor on 29-10-1930 before the City Survey Officer. The lower appellate Court though held that by virtue of Section 90 of the Evidence Act, the said document is presumed to have been executed by the persons, who are stated to have been executed, but the contents were not proved. Therefore, the contention of the defendants was negatived. The learned Single Judge while considering the said issue as to how the recitals of such an old document could be proved, considered the same and concluded as under :
Section 17 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Bhagwati Prasad vs Musri Lal And Anr. on 6 September, 1934
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.
Chandulal Asharam Travadi vs Bai Kashi on 12 August, 1938
To the same effect is the decision of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Chandulal v. Bai Kashi (supra), where it was held Section 90 of the Evidence Act only provides that documents more than 30 years old coming from proper custody prove themselves, but it does not involve any presumption that the contents of the documents are true.
Bhagirathmal Kanodia And Anr. vs Jamini Ghose, Shebait Of Lahshmi ... on 25 November, 1941
To the same effect is the decision of a Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in Bhagirathmal Kanodia v. Bibhuti Bhusan (supra) where it was held that the presumption referred to in Section 90 is of a limited character and applies only to the signature or handwriting. Where, however, there are no names of executant, scribe, or witness, the section cannot avail to prove the document, merely because it happens to be more than 30 yeas old or is produced from custody, Which the Court may consider proper.
Ghurahu And Ors. vs Sheo Ratan And Ors. on 30 June, 1980
In Ghurahu v. Sheo Ratan (supra) a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court while considering the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act held that the extent of presummion is laid down in the section itself. It cannot be stretched beyond it. If a document is 20 years old (as per State amendment) and the Court is satisfied of its proper custody, it may be presumed that signature and any other part of document which purports to be in handwriting of any particular person is in that person's handwriting, that the document was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed and that the document was attested by the person by whom it purports to have been attested. In fact Section 90 dispenses with proof of document as required in Sections 67 and 68 and what is required to be done is deemed to have been done by operation of law. But, the proof of signature or handwriting does not establish that whatever is stated in document is also correct. That has to be proved not only by production of document but by proving its contents as well.
Adusumilli Venkata Subba Rao vs Gullapall Subba Rao And Ors. on 9 November, 1962
In Venkata Subba Rao v. G. Subba Rao (supra), a Division Bench of this Court while considering the recitals contained in an old document of family arrangement held relying upon Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the presumption which exists with regard to the recitals in ancient documents must therefore, prevail as it would be difficult to prove such recitals in ancient documents.