Thirty Hoshiarpur v State of Punjab

• A dispute arose regarding ownership of land recorded in revenue records dating back several decades.
• The State produced old revenue records (over 30 years old) from the government Tehsildar's office.
• The records showed entries of ownership and possession relevant to the dispute.
• The opposing party challenged the genuineness of the records, demanding formal proof of execution.
• The question arose whether the presumption under S.90 IEA could be invoked.

1. Whether a document over 30 years old produced from proper custody of government revenue records is entitled to the presumption of genuineness under S.90 IEA without formal proof of execution?

• S.90 IEA raises a discretionary presumption ("may presume") of genuineness for documents over 30 years old.
• Three conditions must be satisfied: (a) the document is 30+ years old, (b) it comes from proper custody, and (c) it is regular on its face.
• Government records offices constitute proper custody for official revenue documents.
• Once conditions are met, formal proof of signature and execution is unnecessary.
• The presumption is rebuttable and the opposing party may lead evidence to displace it.

The presumption under S.90 exists because of the practical impossibility of proving execution of very old documents by calling the author (who may be deceased) or witnesses. Where the document comes from a natural and expected repository (proper custody) and bears no visible signs of tampering or irregularity, the law deems it reasonable to presume genuineness. This does not mean its contents are proved true; it only dispenses with formal proof of execution.