Dr. Jeevan Bahadur Samaddar Vs. Govind Charan Samaddar

Dr. Jeevan Bahadur Samaddar Vs. Govind Charan Samaddar & Others: 30.05.2013 :Second Appeal No. 234 of 2010 :  2013:AHC:83009 : Allahabad JC: Hon'ble Judge: Justice Sudhir Agarwal

The Court considered a dispute concerning the proof and evidentiary value of a registered Will and the applicability of the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The case arose from competing claims by two brothers over ownership of their deceased father's property on the basis of separate Wills. The principal question before the Court was whether a certified copy of a registered Will could attract the statutory presumption under Section 90 and whether such presumption dispensed with the mandatory proof of execution and attestation required for a Will.

After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, court observed that although the period for invoking Section 90 is to be reckoned from the date on which the document is tendered in evidence, the statutory presumption is discretionary and cannot be invoked where the original Will is not produced without satisfying the requirements for leading secondary evidence. The Court further held that even where Section 90 is attracted, it does not dispense with the mandatory requirements of proving a Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court emphasized that registration of a Will by itself does not establish its genuineness.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the concurrent findings of the courts below, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the alleged Will in accordance with law.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.

Comprehensive Analytical Legal Article

Section 90 Evidence Act period is reckoned from tender in evidence.

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 judgment 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 judgment 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. .

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 thereby, the plaintiff approached the Allahabad High Court by filing the present Second Appeal 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.

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 benefit. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 second appeal.

Final Decision of the Court

The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal and affirmed the judgments 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.

Point of Law Settled

The judgment 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 judgment 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.

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 Hon'ble 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 Judgment and are solely for illustrative purposes. Readers are advised not to treat this article as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Suggested SEO Titles

1. Allahabad High Court Explains Proof of Wills under Section 90 of the Evidence Act

2. Certified Copy of a Will Cannot Replace Legal Proof: Allahabad High Court Judgment Explained

3. Section 90 Evidence Act and Proof of Wills: Detailed Analysis of Dr. Jeevan Bahadur Samaddar Case

4. Registered Will Does Not Automatically Become Genuine: Allahabad High Court Ruling

5. Landmark Judgment on Proof of Testamentary Documents and Section 68 of the Evidence Act

6. When Can Courts Presume an Old Document to be Genuine? Allahabad High Court Clarifies

7. Secondary Evidence and Certified Copies of Wills: Important High Court Decision

8. Presumption under Section 90 Evidence Act Explained Through Allahabad High Court Judgment

9. Legal Requirements for Proving a Registered Will in India: Complete Case Analysis

10. Allahabad High Court Reiterates Mandatory Proof of Wills Despite Registration

11. Important Property Law Judgment on Competing Wills and Testamentary Succession

12. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act Explained Through Allahabad High Court Decision

---

Suggested SEO Tags

Section 90 Evidence Act, Indian Evidence Act, Section 68 Evidence Act, Section 63 Indian Succession Act, Registered Will, Certified Copy of Will, Proof of Will, Testamentary Succession, Succession Law, Probate Law, Secondary Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Presumption under Section 90, Old Documents Evidence, Property Dispute, Civil Procedure Code, Second Appeal, Allahabad High Court Judgment, Neutral Citation 2013AHC83009, Will Dispute, Property Litigation, Testamentary Law, Legal News India, Indian Courts, Landmark Judgment, Evidence Law India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

---

Headnote of the Judgment

Dr. Jeevan Bahadur Samaddar v. Govind Charan Samaddar & Others, decided by the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 234 of 2010, concerned rival claims based on two alleged Wills executed by the deceased owner of immovable property. The Court held that although the period under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act is to be reckoned from the date on which the document is tendered in evidence, a certified copy of a Will cannot automatically attract the statutory presumption unless the requirements governing secondary evidence are satisfied. The Court further reaffirmed that proof of a Will must strictly comply with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The second appeal was accordingly dismissed and the concurrent findings of the courts below were affirmed.

This completes the article in the format you requested. It is suitable for publication on a legal news portal or journal with only minor editorial formatting if desired.