In a recent decision, the Madras High Court upheld the presumption of the validity of a will that was over 30 years old, citing Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The ruling highlights the legal standing of documents that have existed for more than three decades and have been produced from proper custody. This judgment sheds light on the nuances of presuming the authenticity of such documents and underscores the legal significance of Section 90 when applied to wills. The court's decision is an essential addition to the discourse around the admissibility and authentication of old documents, particularly wills, in Indian legal practice.
Background of the Case
The case in question involved a dispute over the validity of a will that was produced more than 30 years after its execution. The petitioners challenged the legitimacy of the will, arguing that it had not been properly authenticated and therefore could not be accepted as valid. The respondents, however, contended that the will was presumed to be valid under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows for a presumption of genuineness for documents that are over 30 years old and produced from proper custody.
The court was tasked with determining whether the will, which had surfaced after three decades, could be considered valid based on the legal framework provided by Section 90. The central question was whether the document, despite its age, could be presumed to be genuine without the need for further proof of its execution.
Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act: An Overview
Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act plays a crucial role in this case. The section provides that when a document is more than 30 years old and is produced from proper custody, the court may presume that the document was duly executed and that the signatures on it are genuine. This presumption, however, is not mandatory and may be rebutted by the opposing party if sufficient evidence is provided to challenge the document's authenticity.
The intent behind this section is to ease the burden of proof in cases where documents have been in existence for an extended period, and proving their authenticity through the original witnesses may not be feasible. In such cases, the law allows for a presumption of authenticity, provided that the document has been kept in proper custody and there is no evidence to suggest tampering or forgery.
Court’s Interpretation of Section 90
The Madras High Court, in its analysis, emphasized that the presumption of genuineness under Section 90 is discretionary and not automatic. The court must evaluate the circumstances surrounding the document’s production, including whether it has been maintained in proper custody. Proper custody, as defined by law, refers to the place where the document would naturally be expected to be found, given its nature and origin.
In this case, the court found that the will had been produced from proper custody, as it was in the possession of the deceased’s family members who were its natural custodians. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that the document had been tampered with or that it was a forgery. As a result, the court held that the will was entitled to the presumption of genuineness under Section 90.
The Significance of the Will Being Over 30 Years Old
The court also took into account the fact that the will had been in existence for more than 30 years. According to the provisions of Section 90, the passage of time strengthens the presumption of authenticity, as the likelihood of challenging a document’s genuineness diminishes with the death of witnesses or the loss of other forms of direct evidence.
The court acknowledged that, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, a document that is over 30 years old and has been preserved in proper custody is presumed to be genuine. The rationale is that if a will or other legal document has remained unchallenged for such a long period, it is unlikely to be fraudulent. The burden of proof, therefore, shifts to the party challenging the document to provide evidence of forgery or other irregularities.
Rebutting the Presumption of Authenticity
While the court recognized the presumption of authenticity under Section 90, it also made clear that this presumption is rebuttable. If the party contesting the document can produce credible evidence to suggest that the document is not genuine, the presumption may be overturned.
In this case, the petitioners were unable to provide any concrete evidence to challenge the authenticity of the will. Their arguments were primarily based on speculation and did not include any substantive proof of forgery or tampering. As a result, the court concluded that the will was valid and could not be challenged merely on the basis of conjecture. The court's ruling reaffirms the principle that once a document has been presumed to be genuine under Section 90, the burden of proof shifts to the opposing party to disprove its authenticity.
Legal Precedents Cited by the Court
In its judgment, the Madras High Court referred to several legal precedents that have dealt with the application of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. One such case was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sukhdev Singh v. Gurnam Singh (2012), which clarified that while the presumption under Section 90 is discretionary, it must be applied judiciously, keeping in mind the circumstances of each case.
The court also cited the case of Jitendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2017), where the Supreme Court held that a document more than 30 years old, produced from proper custody, enjoys a presumption of genuineness, but this presumption is not absolute. The court must carefully examine the document and its custody before granting it the benefit of Section 90.
These precedents helped the court frame its reasoning in the present case and reinforced the view that the will in question was entitled to the presumption of authenticity.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s decision to uphold the validity of a 30-year-old will under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act reaffirms the legal framework for presuming the authenticity of old documents. By emphasizing the importance of proper custody and the passage of time, the court underscored the rationale behind this presumption while also cautioning that it is not absolute.
The ruling has important implications for future cases involving the authentication of decades-old documents, particularly wills. It clarifies that while the law provides a mechanism for presuming authenticity, this presumption can be challenged if there is sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. In the absence of such evidence, however, documents over 30 years old that have been maintained in proper custody will be presumed valid, easing the burden of proof for the parties relying on them.
.jpeg)
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.