Gangabai v. Chhabubai

Facts

• A property dispute involved an old sale deed more than 30 years old produced from proper custody.
• The party relying on the deed invoked S.90 IEA to argue that both the execution and the contents of the deed should be presumed true.
• The opposing party contended that while execution may be presumed, the recitals about consideration, delivery of possession, and title of the vendor were not proved.
• The lower courts treated the presumption of genuineness as equivalent to proof of all statements within the document.

Issue

1. Whether the presumption of genuineness under S.90 IEA also extends to a presumption of truth of the contents of the document?

Held

• S.90 raises only a presumption of genuineness: that the document was duly executed by the person it purports to be executed by.
• It does not raise any presumption as to the truth of the recitals or statements contained in the document.
• The truth of contents (facts stated within the document) must be proved by independent evidence.
• Treating genuineness and truth of contents as equivalent conflates two distinct evidential concepts.
• The lower courts erred in presuming the truth of recitals merely because the document was genuine.

Ratio Decidendi

Genuineness means the document is what it claims to be, i.e., it was authored by the person whose signature it bears on the date it records. Truth of contents is a wholly different question relating to whether the facts stated within are accurate. A deed may be genuinely executed by its author yet contain false recitals. The law's willingness to dispense with proof of execution for old documents (due to practical necessity) does not logically extend to dispensing with proof of the facts narrated therein, which remain contested assertions requiring independent establishment.