29/09/2020 Delivery | Westlaw India

Westlaw India Delivery Summary

Request made by : IP USER

Request made on: Tuesday, 29 September, 2020 at 01:23 IST

Client ID: inapu-1

Content Type: Cases
Search : (Citation("air 1980 all 385"))
Delivery selection: Selected Documents
Number of documents delivered: 2

© 2020 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

29/09/2020 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 2

Ram Jas and Others v Surendra Nath and Another

Allahabad High Court

LUCKNOW BENCH

28 January 1980

Case Analysis

Bench Hari Swarup, K.N. Goyal, Mr. S.C. Mathur

Where Reported 1980 Indlaw ALL 252; AIR 1980 ALL 385

Case Digest Subject: Criminal

Keywords: Judicial Record, Reference Answered In Negative

Summary: Practice & Procedure - Indian Evidence Act,1872, s. 90-A(2) -

Documents - Applicability - Whether Sub-Section (2) of s.90-A of Evidence
Act as amended by U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment Act) controls
operation of ss.90(1), (2) of Evidence Act as amended by said U.P. Civil
Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act,1954? - Held, interpretation of law has
to take into consideration purpose of law and if it is law relating to procedure
then also impact it is calculated to have on course of litigation and decision
making - Sections of Evidence Act lay down different circumstances in
which presumption is to be raised - Whenever law permits raising of
presumption Court can by reason of s.4 of 1872 Act raise presumption for
purpose of fact - If presumption is available in one section it can raise it
under that section - Even of ease falls u/s.90(A) an sub-section (2) thereof
is applicable and no presumption can be drawn u/s 90A(1) of 1872 Act it will
exclude Court from drawing presumption if circumstances permit it to be
drawn under any other provision of 1872 Act including s.90 of Act -
Presumption if available u/s 90 can therefore be raised by Court even after
coming to conclusion that presumption u/s 90-A is not available -
Presumptions available u/ss.90,90-A are also not similar - s.90 deals with
documents which are more than 20 years old while s.90-A places no such
restriction and includes also documents from judicial record - Neither of two
sections can be said to be occupying filed which other exclusively occupies
- Not possible to hold that s.90-A(2) will override and nullify s.90 of
document though more than 20 years old, is basis of suit or defence or is
relied upon in plaint or written statement - Question answered in negative.

All Cases Cited Referred

Om Prakash and Others v Bhagwan and Others1974 Indlaw ALL 236, AIR
1974 ALL 389

1989 AllWR 188

1970 AllWR 634

1971 AllLJ 992

Cases Citing this Case Janardan Tewari and another v Dy. Director of Consolidation/A.D.M.
(Finance & Revenue) and others
 29/09/2020 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 3

2014 Indlaw ALL 4168, 2014 (125) RD 165

Zahir v Shimbhoo and others

2014 Indlaw ALL 4438, 2014 (8) ADJ 306

Kedar and others v Gobari

2013 Indlaw ALL 1764, 2013 (9) ADJ 473, 2013 (101) ALR 138, 2014 (3)
AWC 2559, 2013 (121) RD 440, 2014 (123) RD 545

Dr. Jeevan Bahadur Samaddar v Govind Charan Samaddar and others

2013 Indlaw ALL 3580, 2013 (99) ALR 838

Mahabir and others v State

2011 Indlaw ALL 585, 2011 (8) ADJ 383, 2011 (114) RD 76

Nirmala Verma (D) by L.Rs v Nirmal Banerji (D) by L.Rs. and others
2009 Indlaw ALL 2748, 2009 (8) ADJ 596, 2009 (77) ALR 8, 2010 (1) AWC
978, 2009 (108) RD 440

Khudawand Haiyal Qaiyoom, through Mushir Hasan Khan v Sabir

2007 Indlaw ALL 2715, 2007 (7) ADJ 472, 2007 (68) ALR 210, 2007 (6)
AWC 5830

Gokul (Decd.) through L.R. v Board of Revenue, Allahabad and others

1998 Indlaw ALL 1051, 1998 (4) AWC 329, 1999 (90) RD 63

Legislation Cited Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s. 4

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s. 79

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s. 90

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s. 90A

Registration Act, 1908

© 2019 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

This database contains editorial enhancements that are not a part of the original material. The database may also have mistakes or omissions. Users are requested to verify the contents with the relevant original text(s) such as, the certified copy of the judgment,
Government Gazettes, etc. Thomson Reuters bears no liability whatsoever for the adequacy, accuracy, satisfactory quality or suitability of the content.
29/09/2020 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 4

Allahabad High Court

LUCKNOW BENCH

28 January 1980

Ram Jas and Others

v
Surendra Nath and Another

Case No : First C.A. No. 30 of 1966

Bench : Hari Swarup, K.N. Goyal, Mr. S.C. Mathur

Citation : 1980 Indlaw ALL 252, AIR 1980 ALL 385

Summary : Practice & Procedure - Indian Evidence Act,1872, s. 90-A(2) - Documents - Applicability - Whether
Sub-Section (2) of s.90-A of Evidence Act as amended by U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment Act)
controls operation of ss.90(1), (2) of Evidence Act as amended by said U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and
Amendment) Act,1954? - Held, interpretation of law has to take into consideration purpose of law and if it is law
relating to procedure then also impact it is calculated to have on course of litigation and decision making -
Sections of Evidence Act lay down different circumstances in which presumption is to be raised - Whenever law
permits raising of presumption Court can by reason of s.4 of 1872 Act raise presumption for purpose of fact - If
presumption is available in one section it can raise it under that section - Even of ease falls u/s.90(A) an
sub-section (2) thereof is applicable and no presumption can be drawn u/s 90A(1) of 1872 Act it will exclude
Court from drawing presumption if circumstances permit it to be drawn under any other provision of 1872 Act
including s.90 of Act - Presumption if available u/s 90 can therefore be raised by Court even after coming to
conclusion that presumption u/s 90-A is not available - Presumptions available u/ss.90,90-A are also not similar -
s.90 deals with documents which are more than 20 years old while s.90-A places no such restriction and includes
also documents from judicial record - Neither of two sections can be said to be occupying filed which other
exclusively occupies - Not possible to hold that s.90-A(2) will override and nullify s.90 of document though more
than 20 years old, is basis of suit or defence or is relied upon in plaint or written statement - Question answered
in negative.

The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE HARI SWARUP

1. The following question of law has been referred to us for our opinion :-

"Whether Sub-Section (2) of Section 90-A of the Evidence Act as amended by the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms
and Amendment Act controls the operation of Section 90(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act as amended by the
said U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1954."

The question arose in the following circumstances :-

A certified copy of a registered will was pressed in evidence in the case and a presumption about its
execution, attestation and writing was sought to be raised by reason of Section 90(2) of the Evidence Act.
The Civil Judge did not accept the plea on the ground that the provisions of Section 90 were not attracted.
The learned single Judge before whom the appeal came up for hearing was of the opinion that in the
circumstances of the case the presumption could be raised, meaning thereby that the conditions
contemplated by Section 90 of the Act were present. The other objection which was taken before learned
single Judge was that because the document was the basis of the suit no presumption about its due
execution could be raised by reason of Sub-Section (2) of Section 90-A of the Evidence Act. As a Division
Bench in Om Prakash v. Bhagwan, (AIR 1974 All 389) had taken a different view the learned single Judge
referred the question to a Division Bench. The Division Bench, finding that the decision in Om Prakash's
case (supra) needed reconsideration and the question was of general importance, referred the question for
the opinion of a larger Bench. It is how the question has come before us.
29/09/2020 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 5

2. Section 90 of the Evidence Act was amended by the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act 34 of
1954, in two ways. The existing Section was renumbered as Section 90(1) and for the words "thirty years"
the words "twenty years" were substituted and Sub-Sec. (2) was added which was in the following terms :-

"(2) Where any such document as is referred to in Sub-Section (1) was registered in accordance with the law
relating to registration of documents and a duly certified copy thereof is produced, 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 hand writing, and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it
was duly executed and attested by the person by whom it purports to have been executed or attested."

3. After Section 90 Section 90-A was added which runs as under :-

"90-A (1) Where any registered document or a duly certified copy thereof or any certified copy of any
document which is part of the record of a court of justice, is produced from any custody which the court in
the particular case considers proper, the court may presume that the original was executed by the person by
whom it purports to have been executed.

(2) This presumption shall not be made in respect of any document which is the basis of a suit or of a
defence or is relied upon in the plaint or written statement.

The explanation to Sub-Section (1) of Section 90 will also apply to this Section."

4. The controversy has arisen because this particular document can fall both under Sub-Section (2) of
Section 90 and Sub-Section (1) of Section 90-A, it being a duly certified copy of a registered document.
Section 90(2) deals with documents more than 20 years old. Section 90-A makes no such distinction
between the documents. It is urged that because Section 90-A makes no distinction between an old and new
document it will cover even the documents more than 20 years old and if such a document falls in the
exception contained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 90-A the presumption either under Section 90(2) or
90-A(1) will not be available. The contention of the other side is that Sub-Section (2) does not apply to
documents falling under Section 90 and that the presumption available in S.90 being independent of the
presumption under Sec. 90-A would not be nullified by Sub-Section (2) of Section 90-A.

5. Sub-Section (2) opens with the words "this presumption" which normally would mean the resumption
permitted by Section 90-A and not the presumption available in any other Section including Section 90. The
further provision in Section 90-A to the effect that the explanation to Sub-Section (1) of Section 90 will also
apply to this Section, makes it further clear that Section 90-A is a Section independent of Section 90 of the
Act.

6. In Om Prakash v. Bhagwan (AIR 1974 All 389) the document produced was more than 20 years old but it
formed the basis of the defence. Considering Ss. 90 and 90-A of the Evidence Act the Court observed :-

"It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants that the sale deed in question was
the basis of the defence and was relied upon by the defendants in their written statement. Nothing therefore
in Sec. 90 or Section 90-A of the Evidence Act as amended by the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act 1954
will come to the assistance of the defendants-appellants and the Courts will not draw a legal presumption in
favour of the defendants-appellants that it was executed by Smt. Reoti Devi.

7. Except for this conclusion contained in the judgement there is no discussion from which we may benefit
for making an interpretation of Sections 90 and 90-A of the Evidence Act.

8. It may be relevant to quote the objects and reasons as contained in the Report of the U.P. Judicial
Reforms Committee 1950-51, on the basis of which Section 90 was amended and Section 90-A was
introduced. It runs as under :- "As it has been held by the Privy Council in 1935 ALJ page 847, that the
presumption of Section 90 of the Evidence Act does not apply to certified copies of documents which are
over thirty years old and considerable difficulty is experienced by parties to a suit to prove such old,
documents as witnesses in such cases are either dead or cannot be found it is proposed that the
presumption of Section 90 may be extended to certified copies of registered documents, the originals of
which are over thirty years old. It is necessary to rely on copies when the originals are not traceable or are
lost. Section 90 may, therefore be amended by adding the words "or a duly certified copy of registered
document purporting to be thirty years old" after the words "thirty years old" and before the words "is
produced".

It is felt that a good deal of the time of courts is wasted in recording evidence called to prove formally
registered documents and other documents of which duly certified copies have been filed, even if there is no
real contest with regard to the execution of these documents e.g., in suits based on custom quite a number
of transfer deeds have to be filed to establish a custom and formal proof of these documents has to be
adduced before the documents are admitted into evidence. It is, therefore, desired that courts may be
empowered to apply the presumption mentioned in Section 90 to such documents to a limited extent, i.e.,
formal execution of these documents may be presumed and need not be proved. A new Section as Section
29/09/2020 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 6

90-A may be added in the following form or in some other words carrying out the intention referred to
above."

In Dalsingar v. Sita Ram (1969 All WR (HC) 188) a learned single Judge considered the matter and held that
the two Sections were independent of each other and Section 90 was not controlled by Section 90-A and
accordingly Sub-Section (2) of Section 90-A could not bar the raising of the presumption if the case was
covered by Section 90. The reason given by the learned single Judge was as under :-

"Before considering the Section it would not be improper to see the purpose for which the U.P. Act 24 of
1954 was enacted. Under Section 90 of the Evidence Act a document which was more than thirty years old
was not required to be proved. In order to extend the presumption available under Section 90, the committee
which was appointed to enquire into the system of administration of justice in the State recommended that
the presumption should be extended to a certified copy of the document as well. If the purpose of the
committee was to enlarge the presumption in respect of certified copies, Section 90-A(2) would have the
effect of curtailing the presumption in cases where the document is the basis of the suit or of defence."

9. The principle which has been applied by the learned single Judge in this case also becomes evident from
the following example. If a document optionally registerable under Section 18 of the Registration Act and so
registered, which is more than 20 years old is produced in original it may be hit by Sub-Section (2) of Section
90-A, but if the same document was unregistered then it will not be hit by Sub-Section (2) of Section 90-A.
This could not be the intention of law as that will make the Court raise presumptions in respect of an
unregistered document and not to raise the same presumptions if the document is registered. Registration of
a document gives it greater authenticity and it would not be reasonable to expect that the legislature will
place a registered document at a lower level than a similar unregistered document when it comes for proof in
a Court.

10. In Risal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow, (1970 All WR (HC) 634) another learned
Judge took the view that Sections 90 and 90-A are independent provisions, and the document which is more
than 20 years old cannot be hit by Sub-Section (2) of Section 90-A. The same view was taken by another
learned Judge in Deo Chand v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1971 All LJ 992).

11. The interpretation of law has to take into consideration the purpose of law, and if it is a law relating to
procedure then also the impact it is calculated to have on the course of litigation and decision making.

"Law is commonly divided into substantive law, which defines rights, duties and liabilities; and adjective law,
which defines the procedure, pleading and proof by which the substantive law is applied in practice.

The rules of procedure regulate the general conduct of litigation; the object of pleading is to ascertain for the
guidance of the parties and the court the material facts in issue in each particular case; proof is the
establishment of such facts by proper legal means to the satisfaction of the court, and in this sense includes
disproof. The first mentioned term is, however, often used to include the other two.

"The province of the law of evidence is therefore twofold, viz. to lay down rules as to what matter is or is not
admissible for the purpose of establishing facts in dispute and as to the manner in which such matter may be
placed before the court. Whether any proof is required or not is a question of law, (Phipson on Evidence,
Twelfth Edn. Para 1)".

The law of evidence does not affect substantive rights of parties, but only lays down the law for facilitating
the course of justice. The Evidence Act lays down the rules of evidence for purposes of the guidance of the
Court. It is procedural law which provides, inter alia, how a fact is to be proved.

12. Section 4 of the Evidence Act deals with presumption.

"Section 4 - Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such
fact as proved unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.

Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved,
unless and until it is disproved. When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the
Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved and shall not allow evidence to be given for
the purpose of disproving it".

13. Part I of the Evidence Act deals with relevancy of facts and Part II deals with proof. Chapter V of Part II
deals with documentary evidence and one of its sub-chapters concerns presumptions as to documents. It
contains Sections 79 to 90-A. Sections 79 to 90-A deal with different conditions and circumstances in which
a particular type of presumption can be raised. If the circumstances exist for the raising of a presumption
under any of the provisions of the Evidence Act the Court becomes entitled or bound to raise that
presumption.

"Presumptions are either of law or fact. Presumptions of law are arbitrary consequences expressly annexed
 29/09/2020 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 7

by law to particular facts; and may be either conclusive, as that a child under a certain age is incapable of
committing any crime; or rebuttable, as that a person not heard of for seven years is dead or that a bill of
exchange has been given for value.

"Presumptions of fact are inferences which the mind naturally and logically draws from given facts,
irrespective of their legal effect. Not only are they always rebuttable, but the trier of fact may refuse to make
the usual or natural inference notwithstanding that there is no rebutting evidence." (Phipson on Evidence,
Twelfth Edition Para 9).

14. The presumptions under the Evidence Act are only the inferences which a logical and reasonable mind
normally draws. Facts and circumstances (from) which certain inferences follow are indicated in various
provisions of the Evidence Act running from Sections 79 to 90-A. As already seen the Sections of the
Evidence Act lay down different circumstances in which a presumption is to be raised. Whenever the law
permits the raising of a presumption the Court can by reason of Section 4 of the Evidence Act raise the
presumption for purpose of proof of a fact. If the presumption is available in one Section it can raise it under
that Section. If it is not available in one Section and is available in another Section, then the Court can raise
presumption under that Section. It all depends upon the circumstances available in the case as applicable to
a particular document. Hence, even if the ease falls under Section 90-A and Sub-Section (2) thereof is
applicable and no presumption can be drawn under Section 90-A(1) it will not exclude the Court from
drawing the presumption, if the circumstances permit it to be drawn, under any other provision of the
Evidence Act including Section 90 of the Act. The presumption, if available under Section 90, can, therefore,
be raised by the Court even after coming to the conclusion that a presumption under Section 90-A is not
available.

15. The presumptions available under Sections 90 and 90-A are also not similar. Section 90(2) permits the
raising of the presumption in respect of the signature, handwriting, execution and attestation, while Section
90 permits a presumption only in respect of execution. Section 90 deals with documents which are more
than 20 years old while Section 90-A places no such restriction and includes also documents from judicial
record. Neither of the two Sections, therefore, can be said to be occupying a field which the other exclusively
occupies. They deal with different fields and different circumstances and permit different types of
presumptions to be raised.

16. For the reasons given above it is not possible to hold that Sub-Section (2) of Section 90-A will override
and nullify Section 90 if the document, though more than twenty years old, is the basis of the suit or the
defence or is relied upon in the plaint or written statement. We are, therefore, of opinion that Om Prakash v.
Bhagwan (AIR 1974 All 389) does not lay down the correct law.

17. For the reasons given above we answer the question in the negative. Let this opinion be laid before the
learned single Judge dealing with the appeal.

© 2019 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

This database contains editorial enhancements that are not a part of the original material. The database may also have mistakes or omissions. Users are requested to verify the contents with the relevant original text(s) such as, the certified copy of the judgment,
Government Gazettes, etc. Thomson Reuters bears no liability whatsoever for the adequacy, accuracy, satisfactory quality or suitability of the content.