Jojy George Koduvath.

Abstract

• Under Sec. 90, Not Truth of Contents, but, only presumption of Genuineness of a document (i.e., existence or handwriting), is drawn. Therefore, besides TRUTH, the contents of the documents also have to be proved by cogent evidence.
  • No doubt, under Sec. 114, TRUTH can be presumed, directly, in proper cases, in their peculiar ensuring facts (regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case).
  • That is, if the document is a public document an “added presumption” (as to correctness) under Section 114(e) is available -KalitaIqbal Basith and others v. N Subbalakshmi, (2021) 2 SCC 718.
• Sec. 90 CPC, basically, speaks about two things – as regards 30-year-documents:
  • 1. A document purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person is presumed to be in his handwriting.
  • 2. A document purports to be executed or attested is presumed to be duly executed and attested.
• The presumption, under Section 90, Evidence Act, as to regularity for documents having more than 30 years of age does not apply to Wills (Unless Sec. 71 Evid. Act can be Invoked).
  • Read Blog: How to Prove a Will, in Court? When Presumptions will be enough for Proof of a Will?

PART I

PRESUMPTION – ONE OF THE ‘MODES OF PROOF‘ OF DOCUMENTS

A fact, otherwise doubtful, may be substantiated from certain other facts. It is presumption.

Besides the direct evidence, modes of proof of (contents of) documents include the following:

• Invoking (specific) presumptions under Sec. 79 to 90A.
• Invoking Presumptions (general) on probability or inferences under Sec. 114.
• Relying on Circumstantial evidence – on probability and inferences (Sec. 114).

Proof Invoking Presumption

Presumption being an inference as to the existence of one fact from the proof of some other proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable consequence (See: St. of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar, AIR 2000 SC 2988).

Section 67, Evid. Act requires – facts to be proved; It includes invocation of ‘Presumption‘

In Sumathi Amma v. Kunjuleskhmi Amma (1964 Ker LT 945) it was observed that Section 67, Evidence Act only says that facts have to be proved, and, unlike Section 68, does not prescribe any particular mode of proof. The facts required to be proved under Section 67 can be proved by any kind of evidence, and there is nothing in the section to indicate that the evidence furnished by the registration certificate by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 60 of the Registration Act and by the presumption in Illustration (e) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, is to be excluded.’

Read Blog: Presumptions on Documents and Truth of its Contents

• Proof and Truth of Documents

General and Specific instances of Presumptions in the Evidence Act

Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act allows the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

Sec. 79 to 90A of the Evidence Act speaks as to specific instances of invoking presumptions.

Presumption of Truth is taken ‘on something Proved‘, or Presumed

In Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1052, the Supreme Court definitely found that presumption of truth is taken ‘on something proved or taken for granted ‘. It is observed in Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1052, that the term ‘presumption’ in its largest and most comprehensive signification, may be defined to bear inference, affirmative or disaffirmative, of the truth or falsehood of a doubtful fact or proposition drawn by a process of probable reasoning from something proved or taken for granted.

Is “To Presume” Means “To Take As Proved Until Disproved”?

Meaning of the word “presume” is explored in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996 SC 1744, and stated as under:

• “In Black’s Law Dictionary it has been defined to mean “to believe or accept upon probable evidence”.
• In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary it has been mentioned that in law “presume” means “to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming”.
• Stroud’s Legal Dictionary has quoted in this context a certain judgement according to which “A presumption is a probable consequence drawn from facts (either certain or proved by direct testimony) as to the truth of a fact alleged”.
• In Law Lexicon by P. Ramanath Aiyer the same quotation finds place at page 1007 of 1987 edition.”
•  (See also: Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, 2009 Cr.LJ 168.)

Is presumption under the Indian Evidence Act, clinches to “Truth”?

Not always.

• But, mark – When presumption can be invoked without blemishes (on the face of it), the onus would be on a person who challenges such presumption – See: Prem Singh v. Birbal , (2006) 5 SCC 353)

Two views forthcome:

• First, Presumption is an inference of a fact. This, by itself (invariably) embraces ‘truth’.
• Second (and more cogent), under Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act, court may presume the existence of any fact. The inference, in most cases, will be the subsistence of a fact, like existence of a document or its authorship (rather than its truth). In proper cases, a further presumption could be added – so that the ‘truth’ may also be deduced (Eg. regularity of official acts, sale under a registered sale deed).

The Indian Evidence Act does not expressly correlate “truth” or “correctness” with ‘presumption’. In law, presumption is a probable consequence drawn from facts proved. By invoking presumption, existence (or non existence) of a fact, otherwise doubtful, is inferred from certain other proved facts. The Court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable position. ‘Any fact’ may (or may not) include ‘truth’.

In St. of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar, AIR 2000 SC 2988, it is held by our Apex Court as under:

• “Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.”

It is held as under in Mobarik Ali Ahmed Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857, as under:

• “The proof of the genuineness of a document is proof of the authorship of the document and is proof of a fact like that of any other fact. The evidence relating thereto may be direct or circumstantial. It may consist of direct evidence of a person who saw the document being written or the signature being affixed. It may be proof of the handwriting of the contents, or of the signature, by one of the modes provided in Ss. 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. It may also be proved by internal evidence afforded by the contents of the document. This last mode of proof by the contents may be of considerable value where the disputed document purports to be a link in a chain of correspondence, some links in which are proved to the satisfaction of the Court. In such a situation the person who is the recipient of the document, be it either a letter or a telegram, would be in a reasonably good position both with reference to his prior knowledge of the writing or the signature of the alleged sender limited though it may be, as also his knowledge of the subject-matter of the chain of correspondence, to speak to its authorship.”

Presumptions on documents arise in the following cases:

1. Presumption on documents made in the course of business.
2. Presumption on Regularity of official and judicial acts.
3. Presumption on Registered Documents.
4. Presumption on statements of dead person or who is not found etc.
5. Presumption on certified copies of foreign judicial records.
6. Presumption on certain books, maps and charts.
7. Presumption on telegraphic messages.
8. Presumption as to electronic messages.
9. Presumption on 90 years old documents.
10. Presumption on electronic records five years old
11. Presumption on undue influence
    • Presumption on Specific documents:
      • a. Wound Certificates, Post-Mortem Report etc.
      • b. Certificate, prepared on the basis of other documents.
      • c. Commission Report in an earlier case
      • d.  Deposition in an earlier case

PART II

SEC. 90 EVIDENCE ACT – 30 YEARS’ OLD DOCUMENTS

Sec. 90 Evidence Act reads as under:

• “90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old:
• 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.
• Explanation.—Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable.”
• This Explanation applies also to section 81. 

Sec. 90 speaks about two things:

• 1. a document purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person
• 2. a document purports to be executed or attested

The presumption spoken of in Sec. 90 is the following:

• handwriting – in that person’s handwriting
• executed or attested – duly executed and attested.

It was a matter of controversy whether truth or genuineness can be attached to the 30-year-old documents (though not specifically stated in Sec. 90).

Sec. 90 – Contents Not Stand Proved; TRUTH Not Presumed

Under Sec. 90, Not Truth of Contents, but, only presumption of Genuineness of a document (ie. existence or handwriting), is drawn. Therefore, besides TRUTH, the Contents of the documents also have to be proved by convincing evidence.

Genuineness (Not Truth of Contents) attached to 30-year-old Documents

In Lakhi Baruah v. Padma Kanta Kalita, (1996) 8 SCC 357, AIR 1996 SC 1253, with regard to admissibility in evidence of thirty years old documents produced from proper custody, it was observed as under:

• “15. Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is founded on necessity and convenience because it is extremely difficult and sometimes not possible to lead evidence to prove handwriting, signature  or execution of old documents after lapse of thirty years. In order to obviate such difficulties or improbabilities to prove execution of an old document, Section 90 has been incorporated in the Evidence Act, 1872 which does away with the strict rule of proof of private documents. Presumption of genuineness may be raised if the documents in question is produced from proper custody. It is, however, the discretion of the court to accept the presumption flowing from Section 90. There is, however, no manner of doubt that judicial discretion under Section 90 should not be exercised arbitrarily and not being informed by reasons.”

Presumption on 30-year-old Copy of Documents

In Lakhi Baruah v. Padma Kanta Kalita, (1996) 8 SCC 357, AIR 1996 SC 1253, with regard to admissibility in evidence of thirty years old documents produced from proper custody, it was observed as under:

• So far as applicability of presumption arising from Section 90 of the Evidence Act in respect of copy of the old document is concerned, the earliest decision of the Indian Court was made in 1880 in Khetter vs. Khetter Paul (ILR 5 Calcutta 886). Later on, in the decisions of various High Court the presumption under Section 90 was also made applicable to the certified copy. The Privy Council, upon review of the authorities, however, did not accept the decision rendered in Khetter and other decisions of the High Court, where the presumption was attached also to copies, as correct. It was indicated that in view of the clear language of section 90 the production of the particular document would be necessary for applying the statutory presumption under Section 90. If the document produced was a copy admitted under Section 65 as secondary evidence and it was produced from proper custody and was over thirty years old, then the signature authenticating the copy might be presumed to be genuine: but production of the copy was not sufficient to justify the presumption of due execution of the original under Section 90. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions in Seetnayva Vs. Subramanya (56 IA 146 : AIR 1929 PO 115) and Basant VS. Brijri (AIR 1935 PO 115). In view of these Privy Council decision, disproving the applicability of presumption under Section 90 to the copy or the certified copy of an old document, in the subsequent decisions of the High Courts, it has been consistently held by different High Courts that production of a copy or a certified copy does not raise the presumption under Section 90. The position since the aforesaid Privy Council decisions being followed by later decisions of different High Courts is that presumption under Section 90 does not apply to a copy or a certified copy even though thirty years old: but if a foundation is laid for the admission of secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act by proof of loss or destruction of the original and the copy which is thirty years old is produced from proper custody, then only the signature authenticating the copy may under Section 90 be presumed to be genuine.”

Photocopy of 30 Years Old Official Documents –Marked without Objection– Effect

Quoting Lakhi Baruah v. Padma Kanta, it is held in Kalita Iqbal Basith and others v. N Subbalakshmi, (2021) 2 SCC 718, as regards official/public document, marked without objection, as under:

• “The appellants produced photocopies of all other resolutions, government orders and sale deed in favour of their vendor OA Majid Khan by the Municipality. The failure to produce the originals or certified copies of other documents was properly explained as being untraceable after the death of the brother of P.W.1 who looked after property matters. The attempt to procure certified copies from the municipality was also unsuccessful as they were informed that the original files were not traceable. The photocopies were marked as exhibits without objection. The respondents never questioned the genuineness of the same. Despite the aforesaid, and the fact that these documents were more than 30 years old, were produced from the proper custody of the appellants along with an explanation for non­production of the originals, they were rejected without any valid reason holding that there could be no presumption that documents executed by a public authority had been issued in proper exercise of statutory powers. This finding in our opinion is clearly perverse in view of Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, which provides that there shall be a presumption that all official acts have been regularly performed. The onus lies on the person who disputes the same to prove otherwise.”

Under Sec. 114, TRUTH Can be Presumed, DIRECTLY

No doubt, under Sec. 114, TRUTH can be presumed, directly, in proper cases, in their peculiar facts (regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case).

Read Blog: Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved

• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?

In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148, it was held as under:

• “Presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act in respect of 30 years’ old document coming from proper custody relates to the signature, execution and attestation of a document i.e. to its genuineness but it does not give rise to presumption of correctness of every statement contained in it. The contents of the document are true or it had been acted upon have to be proved like any other fact.”

In Jhasketan Bhoi V. Krushna Bhoi, ILR 2018-2 Cuttack (Orissa) 440. It was held as under:

• “It is no-doubt clear that Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act if any document is produced from proper custody which is executed 30 years back then the document can be proved by production from proper custody. But that does not mean that the contents of the documents are proved. The contents of the document have to be proved by cogent evidence.”

After reading Sec. 90, the High Court proceeded as under:

• “When a document is purportedly to be more than 30 years old, if it be produced from what the Court considers to be proper custody, it may be presumed
  • 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
  • that it was duly executed and attested by the person by whom it purports to be executed and attested.
• Thirty year old document, produced from proper custody, not looking ex facie suspicious, presumption could be drawn in favour of proper execution of the document. It is not necessary that the signatures of the attesting witnesses or of the scribe be proved; if everything was proved there would be no need to presume anything. There can, however, be no presumption as to
  • who is the person, who executed the document was and
  • what authority he had to execute the document, and
  • whether he had the requisite authority, or
  • whether the contents of the document are true.
• In other words, the execution and attestation of the document is presumed, but the contents have to be proved by some way or other.”

The correct view on Sec. 90 had been expressed in Kunhamina Umma v. Special Tahsildar, AIR 1977 Ker 41, wherein it was observed that this was a matter with the discretion of the court. It also referred to Sec. 114 of the Evidence act. It is held as under:

• “10. The true scope of Sec. 90 of the Evidence Act is that the section does away with the strict rules of proof which are enforced in the case of private documents, by giving rise to a presumption of genuineness with regard to documents reaching a certain age. If private documents not less than thirty years old are produced from proper custody, and are on their face free from suspicion, the court may presume that they have been signed or written by the person whose signatures they bear or in whose handwriting they purport to be, and that they have been duly attested and executed, if they purport so to be. In other words, documents thirty years old prove themselves–see Sirkar on Evidence 12th Edn. page 727.
• The section deals with the admissibility of such old documents without proof in the usual manner, but the credit to be given to them depends on the discretion of the court exercised in a judicial manner and the particular circumstances of each case. No doubt, the presumption is permissive and according to the circumstances of each case the court may or may not raise it. It has also been held in certain cases that a sound disposing mind can be presumed under Sec. 90, This is so ‘because of the expression ‘duly executed’in the section. The word duly has to be taken to mean execution by a person legally competent to execute the document–see (1) Kottayya v. Karancheti– AIR 1930 Mad 744 (2) Munnalal v. Kshibai — AIR 1947 PC 15; (3) Venkatarama v Bhaskar Rao — AIR 1962 Andh Pra 29.
• This presumption is fortified by Sec. 114 Evidence Act. Again it may be made clear that it is in the discretion of the court to draw the presumption or not.”

Title is to be decided on the basis of other evidence, Not on Recital of 1945 Deed

In Kuldeep Sharma v. Satyendra Kumar Sharma, AIR 2001 All. 366, it is held as under:  

• “The recital of the gift deed of the year 1945 in favour of Sheo Prasad, even if taken to be admissible, does not have much evidentiary value. The executant of the document is required to disclose the title of the property, but if there is dispute, the title is to be decided on the basis of other evidence and not on the basis of the recitals in the deed itself. Therefore, the Courts below rightly rejected the contents of the gift deed. Learned counsel for the appellants cannot take shelter of the recitals of the gift deed of the year, 1945 to argue that Smt. Yashoda Devi was the owner of the property as mentioned in the same.

“Proper Custody”

As regards the ‘proper custody’ in Sec. 90 Evidence Act it is observed in Cheedella Padmavathi v. Cheedella Lakshminarasimha Rao, 2015(5) ALT 634, as under:

• “The proper custody is in the custody of a person, who might be reasonably and naturally be expected to have possession of them.” 

In Rangaswami v. T.V. Krishnan, 2011-1 CC 832, it is observed that ‘proper custody means custody of an individual connected with deed and its possession does not excite any fraud or suspicion’.

No Presumption to 30 Years Old Will

The presumption, under Section 90, Evidence Act, as to regularity for documents having more than 30 years of age does not apply to Wills.

• Wills have to be proved in terms of Sections 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 (the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses), and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive). Section 69 of the Evidence Act directs – if no such attesting witness can be found – to prove (i) the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting and also (ii) the signature of the testator. Section 71 permits – if the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document – to prove the execution of the will by other evidence.

Read Blog: How to Prove a Will, in Court? When Presumptions (alone) will be enough for Proof of a Will?

In M.B. Ramesh v. K.M. Veeraje Urs, (2013) 7 SCC 490, it is held as under:

• “.. . As held by this Court in Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh reported in 2009 (3) SCC 687, a presumption regarding documents 30 years old does not apply to a will. A will has to be proved in terms of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act. That takes us to the crucial issue involved in the present case, viz. with respect to the validity and proving of the concerned will. A Will, has to be executed in the manner required by Section 63 of the Succession Act. Section 68 of the Evidence Act requires the will to be proved by examining at least one attesting witness. Section 71 of the Evidence Act is another connected section “which is permissive and an enabling section permitting a party to lead other evidence in certain circumstances”, as observed by this Court in paragraph 11 of Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam reported in 2003 (2) SCC 91 and in a way reduces the rigour of the mandatory provision of Section 68. As held in that judgment Section 71 is meant to lend assistance and come to the rescue of a party who had done his best, but would otherwise be let down if other means of proving due execution by other evidence are not permitted.” Quoted in: Ashutosh Samanta v. S M. Ranjan Bala Dasi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 255.

---

Read in this Cluster:

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC

Power of attorney

• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit

Title, ownership and Possession

• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law

Principles and Procedure

• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Admission, Relevancy and Proof
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Proof and Truth of Documents
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent Interest
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE

Evidence Act – General

• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• Sec. 65B
• Sections 65A & 65B, Evidence Act and Arjun Panditrao: in Nutshell
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate for Computer Output
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• Law on Documents
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as a ‘Public Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Collateral Purpose
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of its Contents
• Proof and Truth of Documents
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance

Contract Act

• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance

Easement

• What is Easement?
• Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit”?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition

Stamp Act

• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose

Will

• Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Religious issues
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

• General
  • General Features
  • Bye Laws Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Juristic Personality
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Classification of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions