A TERM PAPER ON INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT TO

PRESUMPTION TO DOCUMENTS

1 2
Harneet kaur ,
Yukta sharma
1 Student, BCOM-LLB (HONS) 4th year, Chandigarh
University,Ludhiana
2Assistant Professor-DR.Suggandha Passi ,
1
Kanikumaravel7464@gmail.com ,2adv.aryar@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence that the document is genuine;
that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be
made by the person signing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or confession
was duly taken.
Document means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by-means of letters,
figures or marks, or by more than one of those-means intended to be used, or which may be
used, for the purpose of recording that matter. A writing, printing, lithograph, photograph, map,
a plan, an inscription on a metal plate or a stone, a plaque, caricature etc are documents.
At this stage we must bear in mind another principle i.e “Party must produce the best evidence in
possession or power of the party”. Basically the best evidence is primary evidence i.e the
document itself. When we say document itself, it envisage original document which is called
Primary Evidence.Document is required to be proved in accordance with the provisions of the
Evidence Act. Mere production and marking of the document as an exhibit is not enough.
Execution of documents is to be proved by admissible evidence. The admission of documents
under Order 13 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code does not bind the parties and unproved
documents cannot be regarded as proved nor do they become evidence in the case without
formal proof. The marking of a document as an exhibit, be it in any manner whatsoever
either by use of alphabets or by use of numbers, is only for the purpose of identification.
Endorsement of an exhibit number on a document has no relation with its proof. Neither
the marking of an exhibit number can be postponed till the document has been held proved;
nor the document can be held to have been proved merely because it has been marked as an
exhibit.

AIM OF THE STUDY:

The aim of the study is used to know about the Indian evidence act to presumption to documents.

OBJECTIVE:
 To know about the discretionary presumptions relating to documents.
  To learn about the presumptions as to Indian evidence act .
 To analysis of section 4 of the Indian evidence act.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
Where a document is required by law to be stamped at the time when it is received by the holder, and
the document is produced in Court duly stamped, the presumption is that it was duly stamped
when received, and the onus is on the other (Author : john Banville , 2006)The peculiar effect of a
presumption "of law" (Dr.Lakshmi T and Rajeshkumar S 2018)is merely to invoke a rule of law
compelling the jury to reach the conclusion in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the
opponent.3 Presumption are scattered under different places of the Indian Evidence Act. It has been
defined under 'Section 4' of the said Act.4(Author: SaiRamaniGarimella , 2010) notary's certificate of
execution or authentication of a document in India is not by itself evidence of such execution or
authentication. Such document will have to be proved like any ordinary document. (Trishala A , Lakshmi
T and Rajeshkumar S,“2018 )But observations in some cases suggest a presumption of due
execution and authentication, that is, the fact that the(Author : StephenFitzjames James

,1870)This authority, however, lays down that when a notice is sent by post and evidence is

tendered that the notice is so sent, a presumption arises that the letter reaches its .The first
presumption arises by posting of the letter in the ordinary course without registration under Section
114(f) of the Evidence Act(Author: ShantanuChakratu, 1872)presumptions of law, strong or violent
presumptions of fact, as well as those arising from evidence, direct or presumptive, which shift the
burden of proof to the other party."The terms "presumptions of law" and "presumptions of fact" are
nowhere mentioned or defined by the Indian Evidence Act;(Author :J.Kindersley ,1791).

METHODOLOGY:

In this research the researcher used the descriptive method.

Descriptive Research More simply put, descriptive research is all about
describing people who take part in the study. There are three ways
a researcher can go about doing a descriptive research project, and
they are: Observational, defined as a method of viewing and recording
the participants.
SOURCES OF STUDY:
Various books, e-sources and journals are used for the
study related to Indian evidence act to presumption to documents
.

LIMITATION :
1. The research has been limited to only referring to online sources and books.
2. The topic is very vast with limited time.
CHAPTERISATION :

The entire study is divided into two chapters with an introduction

and a conclusion. Chapter - I This paper deals with Analysis of
section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act . Chapter – II This paper
deals with the Discretionary presumptions relating to documents .

CHAPTER – I

ANALYSIS OF SECTION 4 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with three categories of presumptions ❖ Discretionary
Presumptions ❖ Mandatory Presumptions ❖ Conclusive Proof The Sections of the Indian Evidence Act
which manage Discretionary Presumptions identifying with records are segments 86, 87, 88, 90 and 90-
A. These Presumptions are those in which the words may assume are utilized as a part of the areas and
the words may assume is utilized implies that the official courtrooms have prudence to choose with
respect to whether an assumption is permitted to be raised or not. On account of such assumptions the
official courtrooms will assume that a reality is demonstrated unless and until the point when it is said to
be discredited under the watchful eye of the courtroom or it might call for verification of a reality
brought before I1 The Sections of the Indian Evidence Act which manage Mandatory Presumptions are
Section 79, 80, 80-A, 81, 82, 83 85 and 89. These Presumptions are those in which the words might
assume is utilized. In the event of such assumptions the official courtrooms will assume that a reality
before it is demonstrated until and unless it is negated.. The words should assume connote that the
courts need to obligatorily raise an assumption and such an assumption which is raised might be
thought to be demonstrated unless and until the point when the assumption is said to be negated and
there is no tact left to the court hence there is no requirement for call of evidence for this situation.2 It
resembles order of the lawmaking body to the court to raise an assumption and the court must choose
the option to do it. The similitude amongst optional and required assumptions is that both are
rebuttable assumptioni
 i
FitzjamJames , Stephen ., Law of evidence ., published by litte brown on 1870.,in USA.

2The Indian evidence act ( amendment) Bill 2013 by Law commission of India .

Conclusive Proof is characterized under Section 4 that one reality is said to

be decisive confirmation of another reality when the court might on the
verification of a specific certainty respect another reality to be demonstrated
and the court should not permit any proof which might to be given to
disprove such a reality. Decisive Proof is otherwise called Conclusive
Evidence. It gives certain actualities a manufactured probative impact by law
and no proof might be permitted to be created which will battle that impact
It offers certainty to the presence of a reality which is looked to be
established.3This for the most part happens in situations where it is in the
bigger enthusiasm of society or it is against the administrative approach.This is
an irrebuttable assumption. The general govern about weight of evidence is
that it lies on the gathering who charges the reality to demonstrate that the
reality exists. In any case, a gathering can exploit the assumptions which
are to support him. In the event that the indictment can demonstrate that the
states of an assumption are satisfied and such an assumption is of rebuttable
nature then the weight of demonstrate to refute it is dependably on the
gathering who needs to disprove it.

May presume:
At whatever point it is given by this Act the Court may assume a
reality, it might either see such actuality as demonstrated, unless and until
the point that it is invalidated, or may call for confirmation of it. A court
has attentiveness to assume a reality as demonstrated, or to call for
corroborative proof as the conditions require. In such cases the assumption is
definitely not a rigid run the show. The presumption is juris et de jury. The
court is allowed to assume any reality or not as the assumptions are about the
subject of actualities. It might view such actuality as demonstrated,unless and
until the point when it is negated or may require its confirmation. In the event
that for a situation the court has a choice to raise the assumption and
raises the assumption, the refinement between two classes of assumptions
stops and the truth of the matter is assumed, unless and until the point
that it is invalidated. 4It is available to the endless supply of a marriage on a
specific date, either to view as demonstrated the subsistence of the marriage
on a consequent date unless and until the point when it ought to be
invalidated or else to call for confirmation of it. For instance Under segment
90 of the Evidence Act when an archive of thirty years of age is created
under the steady gaze of the court, it might be assumed that the report was
marked and composed by a man by whom it was attempted to have been
 composed and marked. So also, Section 88 of this Act manages assumption
(may assume in nature, for example, to telegram.
Shall presume:
At whatever point it is coordinated by this Act the Court should
assume a reality, it might see such certainty as demonstrated, unless and
until the point that it is negated. The court will undoubtedly assume a
reality as demonstrated. The assumption is irrebuttable assumption as it is
assumption of law. At whatever point there is arrangement to the impact,
"that the court might assume a reality," the court can't practice its caution, yet
in such situation the court should have freedom to permit inverse gathering
to show proof to invalidate the reality so assumed. On the off chance that
the gathering is fruitful in negating it the court should not assume the reality.
The articulation "might assume" is to be comprehended as in fear i.e.
having some import of compulsion.For case Under area 89 of the Evidence
Act "the court might assume that each report, called for and not delivered
after notice to create validated, stamped and executed in the way required by
law."5

Conclusive proof : When one certainty is pronounced by this Act to be convincing confirmation of another, the Court
should, on verification of the one actuality, view alternate as demonstrated, and might not enable proof to be given to
disprove it. At the point when a reality is a 'decisive confirmation' of another reality the court has no caution to discredit it.
It is irrebuttable assumption and the court should not enable confirmation to be given to disprove it. "Decisive
confirmation' gives a simulated probative impact by the law to specific actualities. No confirmation is permitted to be
delivered with a view to fighting that impact. In this sense it is unquestionable assumption.6 "Convincing verification: is
likewise inside the domain of the Evidence Act. Where a statute influences certain realities as last and indisputable, to
confirmation to discredit such actualities isn't to be permitted. This is the most grounded of all assumptions. At the point
when any individual signs a report is assumed that he has perused the archive7 legitimately and comprehended it and just
them he has joined his mark consequently, generally no mark on a record can ever be acknowledged . "Specifically,
representative, seeing cautious individuals (since their cash is included) would have commonly perused and
comprehended an archive before marking it. Thus the assumption would be considerably more abnormal for their
situation." For example:Birth amid marriage, a last judgment of the court, or a degree presented by the University. CASE
LAWS: CASE LAW 1: KashibaiMartand vs Vinayak Ganesh And Ors. on 22 February, 1955 This is an interest by the offended
party whose case to reclaim the suit contract has been expelled by both the Courts beneath. The claim has been rejected
on the ground that the execution of the home loan deed isn't demonstrated by the offended party. The mortgagee
Vinayak embraced Ganesh. Ganesh kicked the bucket on 7-4-1934. Vinayak is his child; he is respondent No. 1 to the
present suit. Vinayak sold the right, title and enthusiasm vesting in him to Dhanraj Hajarimal on 22-8-1935. The buyer in
his turn sold the property to NathmalRajmal gracious 23-12-1935. It gives the idea that Vinayak tested the deal deed
executed by him for Dhanraj on 22-8-1935, by recording suit No. 214 of 1939. This suit was announced and Vinayak was
held qualified for the ownership of the property presently in suit and different properties on condition that he paid
Rs.15,000 in the way endorsed by the decree.Defendant No. 1 at that point sold his right, title and enthusiasm for this
property to NathmalRajmal on 29-4-1943. It ought to be seen that Nathmal felt uneasy about the legitimacy of his title in
perspective of the declaration which was passed for litigant No. 1 and against his merchant Dhanraj Hajarimal. right, title
and enthusiasm of respondent No. 1 was put to deal at a bartering deal held under a request passed on the Original Side
of this Court on 27-8-1943. Govind Palekar was the bartering buyer at this deal. Govind Palekar, in his turn, looked to finish
his title and leave no imperfection in it by acquiring a deed of discharge from Nathmal on 27-11-1943. Govind Palekar
passed on 27-9-1944, and the present respondents Nos. 2 to 6 are his beneficiaries and lawful delegates. By the joined
activity of those two presumptions the offended party has, in my judgment, demonstrated that the record was
appropriately executed in the way required by law.8 CASE LAW 2: Sri S Prakash vs Sri Jambu Kumar Mutha on 13 June,
2017 The instance of the offended party to sum things up is as per the following: The whole 'A' timetable property initially
had a place with one Nanjunde Gowda. Offended party's dad B.S.Chaganmal obtained the said property under the enlisted
deal deed dated 23.06.1949. From that point forward offended party and father are/were under lock and key and
satisfaction in the said property. In 1994 the respondents with no privilege or enthusiasm over the suit plan property
attempted to meddle with the offended party's ownership and delight in the same. In this manner he recorded O.S.
No.235/1994. Pending that suit, in February 1996 the respondents trespassed into the 'B' plan property. In this way
offended parties documented O.S.No.41/1996 in presentation and order. Plaint in O.S. No.41/1996 was returned RFA NOS
806/2000 C/W 296/2011 under Section 80 C.P.C. Exploiting that in April 1996 the litigants set up development on plaint 'B'
plan property. Along these lines the suit. The litigants documented their composed explanation and challenged the suit.
The significance of the composed articulation is as follows9 :The showcase estimation of the suit plan property is more
than Rs.12 Lakhs. The suit isn't appropriately esteemed and Court expense paid in adequate. The Government gained
Sy.No.206 alongside sy.No.196, 203, 204/1, 204/2, 204/3 and 205 of Malur Village under Section 8 of the land
procurement Act for open reason specifically for development Municipal High School and inns. After such securing
Municipal High School was developed in 1956. Therefore under the blessing deed dated 12.05.1976 Municipality gave
over the Municipal High School alongside the properties including building and so on., to the Government. From that point
forward the litigant is in control of RFA NOS 806/2000 C/W 296/2011 11 sections of land 21 juntas of land which
incorporates suit property. Neither the offended party nor his precursors have any privilege in the suit property and suit is
documented just to knock off the Government property.10 The extra school building is built on the suit property by
burning through Rs.8 Lakhs. The respondents have built stone piece around secondary school to keep up the protection.
The suit is hit by Section 80 C.P.C. The judgment and pronouncement in O.S.No.125/96 go by the Addl. Common Judge
(Sr.Dvn.) and CJM, Kolar is thusly affirmed. The litigants are therefore coordinated to handover the empty ownership of
the suit plan "B" property inside 60 days from the date of this Judgment. CHAPTER –II DISCRETIONARY PRESUMPTION
RELATING TO DOCUMENTS Discretionary presumptions are those presumptions where the watchfulness is left to the court
regardless of whether to raise the assumption. The arrangements in which the words "may assume" are utilized are
optional assumptions. The optional assumptions identifying with records are given under Sections 86, 87, 88, 90 and 90-An
of the Indian Evidence Act. Segment 86 sets out the rule that the court may make an assumption identifying with the
validity and exactness of a confirmed duplicate of a legal record of any outside nation if the said report is appropriately
guaranteed as per the principles which are utilized as a part of that nation for affirming duplicates of legal records.11 The
assumption under this segment is tolerant and basic in nature and subsequently ought to be agreed to. Yet, the court has
the caution to choose whether the assumption ought to be raised or not. On the off chance that there is no endorsement
under this segment then an outside judgment isn't acceptable as proof in court. Yet, this does not imply that it rejects
other verification. It isn't fundamental that the remote judgment ought to have just been conceded as confirmation in
order to offer ascent to this assumption . The presumption under Section 87 is identified with the creation, time and place
of the book or guide or diagram and not identified with precision or rightness of actualities contained in the book, guide or
graph. The exactness of the data in the guide, book or outline isn't indisputable however without opposite proof it is dared
to be precise. 12The precision of the data in a guide or an outline relies upon the wellspring of data. The age of the
distribution is likewise not essential the court can allude to any production as long as it is important to the suit brought
before it. The presumption under Section 88 depends on the rule that the demonstrations of authority nature are
performed in a standard way. Under this area the court acknowledges gossip explanation as confirmation about the
character of the message which was conveyed. The prerequisite under this area that no assumption might be made as to
the individual who has conveyed the message with the end goal of transmission is required and ought to be essentially
consented to. This assumption just works if the message has been conveyed to the recipient generally the message isn't
held to be demonstrated. This presumption applies just those messages which are transmitted to the addressee through
the telegraphic office. This presumption also applies to radio messages 13 The shape which is given to the mail station by
the sender of the message is the first of the wire and not the frame given by the mail station to the recipient. Either the
first duplicate must be submitted under the steady gaze of the court by a mail station official or