​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption Regarding the Authenticity of Documents Thirty Years Old [Section 92]
​
Section 92 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 embodies an important evidentiary principle relating to ancient documents, that is, documents which are thirty years old or more. This provision enables courts to presume the genuineness of such documents, thereby relieving parties of the often-impracticable burden of proving their execution after a long lapse of time.

Statutory Rule
According to Section 92, where any document purporting or proved to be thirty years old is produced from a custody which the Court, in the given circumstances, considers to be proper, the Court may presume:

• that the signature and every other part of the document which appears to be in the handwriting of a particular person is indeed in that person’s handwriting; and
• that the document, if it purports to have been executed or attested, was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it claims to have been so executed or attested.

The provision thus allows the Court to presume not only the handwriting and signature but also the due execution and attestation of such documents.

Meaning of Proper Custody
The Explanation to Section 92 clarifies the concept of proper custody. A document is said to be in proper custody if it is found in the place where it would naturally be kept and under the care of the person with whom it would ordinarily remain. However, custody is not considered improper merely because the document is produced from a different source, provided it is shown to have a legitimate origin or the circumstances reasonably explain how it came into such custody.
Illustrations of proper custody include:

• Title deeds produced by a person who has long been in possession of the land;
• Deeds produced by a mortgagee relating to mortgaged property;
• Documents deposited with a relative or acquaintance for safe custody.

In all such cases, the custody would be regarded as proper.
Scope and Rationale of the Section
The primary objective of Section 92 is to address the practical difficulty of proving documents executed decades earlier. With the passage of time, witnesses may die, handwriting experts may not be available, and direct evidence of execution may no longer exist. To avoid injustice and unnecessary hardship, the law permits a presumption of genuineness for documents that have survived for thirty years.
The provision is founded on necessity, convenience, and probability, as it is reasonable to assume that documents preserved for such a long period without dispute are likely to be genuine.

Nature of the Presumption
The presumption under Section 92 is discretionary, as indicated by the words “may presume”. The Court is not bound to draw the presumption in every case and must exercise its discretion judiciously. The presumption is confined strictly to:

• handwriting,
• signature,
• execution, and
• attestation.

It does not extend to the truth of the contents of the document or to collateral facts, which must still be proved independently.
Moreover, if a party has already attempted to prove the document by direct evidence and failed, it cannot later fall back upon this statutory presumption.

Essential Conditions for Raising the Presumption
For the presumption under Section 92 to operate, the following conditions must be satisfied:

1. The document must be at least thirty years old.
2. The thirty-year period is generally calculated from the date borne on the document, though extrinsic evidence may be used if no date is mentioned.
3. The document must be produced from proper custody, which is a question of fact in each case.
4. The presumption applies primarily to the original document, not to copies.
5. The document must have completed thirty years at the time it is tendered in evidence, not merely when it is filed in court.
6. The document must appear to be free from suspicion on its face.

Courts are cautioned to carefully examine the apparent age of documents, as a recently created document may falsely bear an old date.

Judicial InterpretationIn Om Prakash (Dead) through LRs v. Shanti Devi, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the thirty-year period is to be reckoned from the date when the document is tendered in evidence and its genuineness becomes a matter of proof, not from the date of its mere filing. This principle traces its origin to the Privy Council decision in Surendra Krishna Roy v. Mirza Mahammad Syed Ali Mutawali.

Similarly, in Tushar Arun Gandhi v. State of Orissa, entries relating to the deposit of Mahatma Gandhi’s ashes, being over thirty years old, were presumed to be genuine under this provision.
Exception: No Presumption for WillsA significant limitation of Section 92 is that it does not apply to wills. Even if a will is thirty years old, its execution and attestation must be strictly proved in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Succession Act and the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. This position was firmly established by the Supreme Court in Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh, where it was held that no presumption of genuineness arises in favour of ancient wills.

Conclusion
Section 92 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides a pragmatic mechanism for dealing with ancient documents by permitting courts to presume their authenticity under specified conditions. While the provision significantly eases the evidentiary burden, it simultaneously safeguards against misuse by making the presumption discretionary, limited in scope, and subject to careful judicial scrutiny.