AIR 1989 CALCUTTA 202 ::(1989) 2 CalLT 18

Calcutta High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Padma Khastgir, L. M. Ghosh , JJ

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.68, S.90— Two provisions do not militate against each other - Right of Court to presume under S.90 is not controlled or curtailed by S.68. Notwithstanding S.68 of the Evidence Act, the court in a proper case can make a presumption under S.90 of the Evidence Act. The two provisions, Ss.68 and 90 of the Evidence Act, do not militate against each other. Therefore, the right of the court to presume under S.90 is not controlled or curtailed by S.68 of the Evidence Act. Whether or not the presumption should be made, will depend upon the facts of the particular case, e.g. to decide the genuineness of old documents, the important consideration should be whether they were acted upon or not or whether they were supported by possession or not and too much importance could not be attached to resemblance of signatures or to the opinion of experts about them.(Para 10 13) Where the disputed 30 years old document was acted upon all throughout and presumably within the knowledge of the plaintiff, then the statement of a witness that the signatures purporting to be of the deceased executing was not of him was not sufficient to throw overboard an ancient document and the subsequent event on the basis of that document as it was a fit case where the presumption under S.90 should be made, notwith....