Mere Age Of Document Is Not A Conclusive Proof Of Its Due Execution; Atleast Prima Facie Proof Is Necessary For Presumption U/S 90 Evidence Act: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court observed that mere age of a document is not conclusive proof of its due execution and at least a prima facie proof is necessary for raising the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act though it is a rebuttable presumption.
The Court was hearing a second appeal in Suit for the adjudication right, title, interest and for delivery of possession of the suit property.
The bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “Mere age of the document is not a conclusive proof of its due execution. At least a prima facie proof is necessary to show that the document is thirty years old, for raising the presumption under Section 90,..”
Advocate Niraj Kishore appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Rohit Roy appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Plaintiff filed the suit for adjudication of right, title and interest and for delivery of Khas possession of the suit property. He claimed the title on the basis of settlement in 1950 by the ex-landlord followed by possession, whereas defendants claimed it on the basis of a sale deed executed by Suleman Christan and Abhiram Oraon.
The Court said that the lower Court has assigned sound reasons for not accepting Hukumnama as a document of title. According to the Court, lower Courts dismissed the suit because there was no specific pleading with respect to settlement of land and the said unregistered Hukumnama surfaced for the first time during the trial.
The Court further noted that the said settlement was made on abandonment by the previous tenant without permission from the Deputy Commissioner.
The bench said that the Plaintiffs have not adduced into any other document of title in support of their claim for relief of recovery of possession.
Accordingly, the Court said it did not find any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned findings of both the Courts below.
Finally, the Court dismissed the Second Appeal.
Cause Title: Sanjeeda Begam v. Md. Eqbal
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Niraj Kishore and Adv. Shobha Rani
Respondent: Adv. Rohit Roy and Adv. Tarun Mahto
