Registered Will, Section 90 Evidence Act and Proof of Testamentary Documents: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law
Introduction
Disputes relating to wills frequently arise within families after the death of a property owner. Such disputes often require courts to balance the intention of the deceased with the strict statutory requirements governing the proof of testamentary documents. The present judgement delivered by the Allahabad High Court is an important authority on the manner in which a will must be proved in a court of law and clarifies the limited scope of the presumption available under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The judgement assumes particular significance because it explains that a registered will does not automatically become genuine merely because it is old or registered. The Court also examined whether a certified copy of a registered will could enjoy the statutory presumption available to old documents and whether such presumption could replace the mandatory proof required under the law governing wills.
Highlights of the Judgment
- Explains the scope of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- Clarifies whether certified copies of registered wills receive the statutory presumption.
- Discusses the evidentiary requirements under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
- Examines the admissibility of secondary evidence relating to Wills.
- Reaffirms that registration alone does not prove the genuineness of a will.
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute arose over ownership of a residential property situated at Bai Ka Bagh, Allahabad, originally owned by Dr J.N. Samaddar. According to the plaintiff, his father had executed a registered will dated 16.05.1983, which was registered on 17.05.1983, bequeathing the entire property exclusively in his favour. After the death of Dr J.N. Samaddar on 07.06.1991, the plaintiff claimed absolute ownership over the property on the strength of the said will.
The plaintiff alleged that although his brother had initially been permitted to occupy a portion of the property, he subsequently asserted ownership and relied upon another will allegedly executed by the deceased on 02.12.1990. Consequently, the plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 166 of 1993, seeking possession of the property, damages and cancellation of the later will.
The defendants contested the suit and asserted that the deceased had validly executed the subsequent Will dated 02.12.1990 in their favour. They therefore denied the plaintiff’s exclusive ownership and opposed the reliefs claimed.
The trial court examined both wills and concluded that neither had been proved in accordance with law. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to produce the original registered will, had not examined any attesting witness, and had not otherwise established its execution. Likewise, the defendants also failed to prove the alleged unregistered will dated 02.12.1990. Consequently, both Wills were declared invalid, and the parties were treated as having equal rights in the property as legal heirs. The plaintiff’s claim for exclusive possession and damages was rejected.
The plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2008, while the defendants filed cross-objections regarding the findings against their will. The lower appellate court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-objections, affirming the trial court’s findings. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiff approached the Allahabad High Court by filing the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Procedural History at a Glance
| Stage | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Original Suit | Original Suit No. 166 of 1993 was filed seeking possession, damages and cancellation of the later will. |
| Trial Court | Held that neither will was proved in accordance with law. |
| First Appeal | Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2008 dismissed. Cross-objections also dismissed. |
| Second Appeal | Plaintiff approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. |
Dispute Before the Court
The principal controversy before the High Court was whether the plaintiff had successfully proved the registered will dated 16.05.1983 on the basis of a certified copy after alleging that the original had been lost. The Court was also required to determine whether the statutory presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, could be invoked in respect of such a certified copy and whether the period of twenty years was to be computed from the date of filing of the suit or from the date on which the document was tendered in evidence.
The court further examined whether the statutory presumption relating to old documents could by itself establish the due execution and attestation of a will or whether compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act remained mandatory. The rival contentions therefore centred upon the admissibility of secondary evidence, the scope of statutory presumptions, and the special evidentiary requirements governing testamentary documents.
Key Legal Issues Before the High Court
- Whether a certified copy of a registered will can be relied upon after alleging loss of the original.
- Whether Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act applies to a certified copy of a registered will.
- Whether the statutory period under Section 90 is calculated from the filing of the suit or from the date the document is tendered in evidence.
- Whether compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act can be dispensed with by invoking the statutory presumption.
- Whether secondary evidence was admissible in the facts of the present case.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the scope and applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court observed that while the general provision under Section 90 permits a presumption regarding documents that are thirty years old, the Uttar Pradesh amendment reduces this period to twenty years. However, the availability of this presumption is not automatic. It remains a matter of judicial discretion, and the court must be satisfied that the statutory conditions have been fulfilled before extending such a benefit.
Computation of Twenty-Year Period Under Section 90
One of the principal issues before the Court concerned the point of time from which the statutory period of twenty years is to be calculated. Rejecting the reasoning adopted by the lower appellate court, the High Court held that the relevant date is not the date on which the suit is instituted or the document is filed in court. Instead, the period is to be reckoned from the date on which the document is tendered in evidence and its genuineness becomes the subject matter of proof. While answering this legal question in favour of the plaintiff, the court clarified that the answer by itself did not establish the validity of the will because the remaining statutory requirements also had to be satisfied.
Admissibility of Certified Copy of Registered Will
The court next considered whether a certified copy of the registered will could attract the statutory presumption under Section 90. It noted that the plaintiff had failed to produce the original will and merely relied upon a certified copy obtained from the registration authorities. The explanation offered for the non-production of the original document was found to be unconvincing and surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish the foundational facts necessary for leading secondary evidence under Sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of compliance with these provisions, the certified copy itself could not be treated as admissible evidence.
Scope of Section 90 and Certified Copies
The Court thereafter analysed the distinction between original documents and certified copies in the context of Section 90. It observed that the statutory presumption ordinarily applies only to original documents produced from proper custody. Although the Uttar Pradesh amendment introduced sub-section (2) to Section 90 dealing with certified copies of registered documents, such copies can receive the benefit of the statutory presumption only after they are admitted in evidence in accordance with the law governing secondary evidence. Merely producing a certified copy does not dispense with the foundational requirements prescribed under the Evidence Act.
Judicial Precedents Relied Upon
While interpreting these provisions, the Court extensively examined earlier judicial precedents. It relied upon the decisions of the Privy Council in Surendra Krishna Roy v. Mirza Mahammad Syed Ali Matwali (AIR 1936 PC 15), Munnalal v. Krishobai (AIR 1947 PC 15), Seetnayya v. Subramanya (AIR 1929 PC 115) and Basant Singh v. Baijnath Prasad, all of which recognised that the statutory presumption concerning old documents primarily applies to original documents and not to certified copies. The Court also referred to the Full Bench decision in Ram Jas v. Surendra Nath (AIR 1980 All 385), which explained the effect of the Uttar Pradesh amendment and clarified the relationship between Sections 90 and 90-A of the Evidence Act.
Mandatory Proof of a Will
The High Court further held that even assuming the statutory presumption under Section 90 could be invoked, such presumption would not eliminate the mandatory legal requirements governing proof of a Will. A Will occupies a unique position in law because it becomes operative only after the death of the testator, who is no longer available to confirm its execution. Consequently, proof of a Will continues to be governed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, which require examination of at least one attesting witness wherever possible. The Court observed that registration of a Will merely constitutes one circumstance and does not by itself establish its authenticity or due execution.
Supreme Court and Privy Council Authorities
In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied upon several authoritative decisions, including Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji (AIR 1943 PC 83), H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (AIR 1959 SC 443), and other Supreme Court authorities governing proof of testamentary documents. These decisions consistently hold that the propounder of a will bears the burden of proving that the document was voluntarily executed by the testator in a sound disposing state of mind and duly attested in accordance with law. Suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution or production of the will must also be satisfactorily explained before a court can accept its genuineness.
Application of Law to the Present Case
Applying these settled principles, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish the admissibility of the certified copy, had not proved due execution or attestation of the alleged Will, and was therefore not entitled to invoke the statutory presumption under Section 90. The concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the lower appellate court did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in the second appeal.
Key Principles Emerging from the Judgment
| Legal Issue | Principle Laid Down by the Court |
|---|---|
| Section 90 Presumption | The presumption is discretionary and not automatic. |
| Twenty-Year Period | Computed from the date the document is tendered in evidence. |
| Certified Copy of Will | Cannot receive the statutory presumption unless secondary evidence is first admissible. |
| Original Document | Ordinarily required for invoking the presumption under Section 90. |
| Registered Will | Registration alone does not prove execution or genuineness. |
| Proof of Will | Must satisfy Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. |
| Attesting Witness | Examination of at least one attesting witness remains mandatory wherever possible. |
| Burden of Proof | The propounder must establish due execution and attestation and remove suspicious circumstances. |
Final Decision of the Court
The High Court dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the judgements of the trial court and the lower appellate court. It held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the registered will dated 16.05.1983 in accordance with the mandatory requirements of law. The certified copy of the alleged will was held insufficient to establish its execution in the absence of compliance with the provisions governing secondary evidence and proof of testamentary documents.
The Court further held that the statutory presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act is discretionary and cannot be invoked merely because a document is old. In the case of a will, compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act remains indispensable. Since no substantial ground existed for interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent findings of the courts below were allowed to stand.
Final Outcome at a Glance
| Issue | Court’s Finding |
|---|---|
| Registered Will dated 16.05.1983 | Not proved in accordance with law. |
| Certified Copy of the Will | Insufficient to establish execution without satisfying the rules relating to secondary evidence. |
| Section 90 Presumption | Discretionary and not automatically available. |
| Proof of Will | Mandatory compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. |
| Second Appeal | Dismissed. |
Point of Law Settled
The judgement authoritatively clarifies that, for the purpose of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, the prescribed period is to be computed from the date on which the document is tendered in evidence and its genuineness becomes the subject of proof. At the same time, the decision makes it equally clear that this principle does not automatically validate an old document or entitle a party to the statutory presumption.
The Court reaffirmed that a certified copy of a registered document cannot ordinarily claim the benefit of Section 90 unless the conditions governing secondary evidence under Sections 64 and 65 of the Evidence Act are first satisfied. Most importantly, the judgement reiterates that proof of a will is governed by the special requirements contained in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Registration of a will or the age of the document cannot substitute the mandatory proof of due execution and attestation. This decision, therefore, reinforces the strict evidentiary standards applicable to testamentary documents and will continue to guide courts in future will-related disputes.
Key Takeaways
- The age of a document does not automatically establish its genuineness.
- Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act creates only a discretionary presumption.
- A certified copy cannot ordinarily claim the benefit of Section 90 unless the requirements relating to secondary evidence are fulfilled.
- Registration of a will is only one relevant circumstance and does not itself prove due execution.
- Proof of a will must comply with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- The propounder continues to bear the burden of proving due execution, attestation and the absence of suspicious circumstances.
- The decision strengthens the evidentiary standards governing testamentary documents.
Case Details
| Title of the Case | Dr Jeevan Bahadur Samaddar v. Govind Charan Samaddar & Others |
|---|---|
| Date of Judgment/Order | 30.05.2013 |
| Case Number | Second Appeal No. 234 of 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | 2013: AHC:83009 |
| Name of Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Name of the Honourable Judge | Justice Sudhir Agarwal |
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in the judgement, and the same are for illustrative purposes only. Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
