Presumption as to documents thirty years old
Time and a trustworthy source speak for themselves. Where a document thirty years old is produced from proper custody, the Court may presume its handwriting genuine and, if executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested.
How to read Section 92
Old + from the right hands → presumed genuine.
Thirty years old, from proper custody.
Handwriting genuine; if executed / attested, duly so.
The § 80 definition — legitimate / probable origin.
The bare Act
The section in its own words — the rule, the Explanation, and three illustrations.
Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, 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 the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.
(a) A has been in possession of landed property for a long time. He produces from his custody deeds relating to the land showing his titles to it. The custody shall be proper.
(b) A produces deeds relating to landed property of which he is the mortgagee. The mortgagor is in possession. The custody shall be proper.
(c) A, a connection of B, produces deeds relating to lands in B’s possession, which were deposited with him by B for safe custody. The custody shall be proper.
In short: when a document is very old, the people who signed and witnessed it are usually dead or untraceable, so strict proof of handwriting and execution becomes impossible. Section 92 answers this with a discretionary presumption: for a document thirty years old (either on its face or as proved) produced from proper custody, the Court may presume that the handwriting is genuine and that, if the document was executed or attested, it was duly executed and attested. Everything turns on custody: the Explanation imports § 80’s test, and the three illustrations confirm that custody is ‘proper’ wherever the source is legitimate — the owner’s own deeds, a mortgagee holding the title, or a friend entrusted with safekeeping. The presumption is confined to authenticity / due execution, not the truth of the contents.
→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 90 — presumption as to thirty-year-old documents. Its electronic counterpart follows in § 93.
Glossary
Old enough (on its face or proved) to trigger the presumption.
A legitimate / probable source — the § 80 test (Explanation).
The Court may — or may require proof (discretionary).
Properly made and witnessed — what may be presumed.
Signature and every part in a person’s hand — presumed his.
Illustration (b) — legitimately holds the deeds though not in possession.
The picture
Thirty years, proper custody — a discretionary trust.
The section, part by part
Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.
the ruleAge plus proper custody buys a presumption
the Explanation + illustrationsWhat counts as ‘proper custody’
Connected provisions
IEA 1872, § 90
Carried forward — presumption as to thirty-year-old documents.