Certified copy — Document more than 20 years old — Admissibility — Evidence Act, 1872 S. 90, S. 90A.

[Dani Ram (deceased by L.Rs) v. Jamuna Das
(deceased by L.Rs) AIR 2010 (NOC) 524 (All) 2010 (1) ALJ 706]

The plaintiff had claimed rights as co-sharer by way of
inheritance from one Mr. Girdhar who was one of the co-sharers. The sale deed
dated 20-10-1914 was reference in evidence, however it was not the basis of
plaint, neither was it relied upon by the plaintiff in pleading. On
admissibility of certified copy of the said sale deed, the Court held that S. 90
and S. 90-A of the Indian Evidence Act as applicable to the State of U.P.
provide that where a document which is more than 20 years old is produced from
proper custody, 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 case executed and attested, that it is
duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it is said to be so executed
and attested. Similarly, S. 90-A of the Act provides that where any registered
document or a duly certified copy thereof is produced from the proper custody,
the Court may presume that the original was executed by the person by whom it
purports to have been executed. In other words, a certified copy of a document
which is more than 20 years old and is produced in evidence from the proper
custody, the presumption would be that it bears the signature of the person and
that it is duly executed and attested by such a person. Therefore, in such
circumstances, it is not necessary to produce the original of such document and
to prove it. However, Ss.(2) of S. 90-A places a rider and provides that such a
presumption shall not be available where the document is the basis of the suit
or of defence or is relied upon in a plaint or written statement. On perusal of
the plaint it reveals that the plaintiff had claimed rights as co-sharer in the
offerings by way of inheritance from Girdhar who was admittedly one of the
co-sharers and whose rights devolved upon his daughter’s son Dulli, who happened
to be the father of the plaintiff. There was no mention in the plaint about the
sale deed dated 20-10-1914 or that the plaintiff is claiming rights on the basis
of the sale deed. A reference of the said sale deed had come only in evidence.
Therefore the sale deed was neither the basis of the plaint, nor had it been
relied upon by the plaintiff in the pleadings. Hence, Ss.2 of S. 90-A of the
Evidence Act would not be attracted, and as such the presumption drawn in favour
of the sale deed by the lower Appellate Court was legally correct. Even though
the original of the said sale deed was not produced and only a certified copy
thereof was brought on record coupled with the fact that its production from the
proper custody is not disputed, it was admissible in evidence u/s.90 and
u/s.90-A of the Act.