67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document
produced. –– If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any
person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s
handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.
1
[67A. Proof as to 2[electronic signature].––Except in the case of a secure 2[electronic signature], if the
2
[electronic signature] of any subscriber is alleged to have been affixed to an electronic record the fact that
such 2[electronic signature] is the 2[electronic signature] of the subscriber must be proved.]
68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.––If a document is required by
law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for
the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of
the Court and capable of giving evidence:
3
[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any
document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been
executed is specifically denied.]
69. Proof where no attesting witness found.––If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the
document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of
one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the
document is in the hand writing of that person.
70. Admission of execution by party to attested document.––The admission of a party to an
attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him,
though it be a document required by law to be attested.
71. Proof when attesting witness denies the execution.––If the attesting witness denies or does not
recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence.
72. Proof of document not required by law to be attested.––An attested document not required by
law to be attested may be proved as if it was unattested.
1. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, s. 92 and the Second Schedule (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
2. Subs. by Act 10 of 2009, s. 52, for “digital signature” (w.e.f. 27-10-2009).
3. Ins. by Act 31 of 1926, s. 2.
36
73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.––In order to
ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been
written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have
been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that
signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.
The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of
enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have
been written by such person.
1
[This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger-impressions.]
2
[73A. Proof as to verification of digital signature.––In order to ascertain whether a digital
signature is that of the person by whom it purports to have been affixed, the Court may direct ––
(a) that person or the Controller or the Certifying Authority to produce the Digital Signature
Certificate;
(b) any other person to apply the public key listed in the Digital Signature Certificate and
verify the digital signature purported to have been affixed by that person.
Explanation. –– For the purposes of this section, “Controller” means the Controller appointed
under sub-section
(1) of section 17 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).]
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
74. Public documents.––The following documents are public documents: ––
(1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts ––
(i) of the sovereign authority,
(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, 3[of any part of India or of the
Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;
(2) Public records kept 4[in any State] of private documents.
75. Private documents.––All other documents are private.
76. Certified copies of public documents.––Every public officer having the custody of a public
document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on
payment of the legal fees there for, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a
true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and
subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer
is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.
Explanation.––Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such
copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.
77. Proof of documents by production of certified copies.––Such certified copies may be produced
in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to
be copies.
1. Ins. by Act 5 of 1899, s. 3.
2. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, s. 92 and the Second Schedule (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
3. The original words “whether of British India, or of any other part of Her Majesty’s Dominios” have successively
been amended by the A.O. 1948 and the A.O. 1950 to read as above.
4. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “in any Province”.
37
78. Proof of other official documents.–– The following public documents may be proved as
follows:––
(1) Acts, orders or notifications of 1[the Central Government] in any of its departments, 2[or of the
Crown Representative] or of any State Government or any department of any State Government, ––
by the records of the departments, certified by the head of those departments respectively,
or by any document purporting to be printed by order of any such Government 3[or, as the
case may be, of the Crown Representative];
(2) the proceedings of the Legislatures,––
by the journals of those bodies respectively, or by published Acts or abstracts, or by copies
purporting to be printed 3[by order of the Government concerned];
(3) proclamations, orders or regulations issued by 4[Her Majesty] or by the Privy Council, or by
any department of 4[Her Majesty’s Government,––
by copies or extracts contained in the London Gazette, or purporting to be printed by the
Queen’s Printer;
(4) the Acts of the Executive or the proceedings of the Legislature of a foreign country, ––
by journals published by their authority, or commonly received in that country as such, or by
a copy certified under the seal of the country or sovereign, or by a recognition thereof in some
5
[Central Act]:
(5) the proceedings of a municipal body in 6[a State], ––
by a copy of such proceedings, certified by the legal keeper thereof, or by a printed book
purporting to be published by the authority of such body;
(6) public documents of any other class in a foreign country, ––
by the original, or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof, with a certificate under the
seal of a Notary Public, or of 7[an Indian Consul] or diplomatic agent, that the copy is duly
certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original, and upon proof of the character of
the document according to the law of the foreign country.
PRESUMPTIONS AS TO DOCUMENTS
79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. –– The Court shall presume 8[to be genuine]
every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by Law declared
to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact, and which purports to be duly certified by any officer
9
[of the Central Government or of a State Government, or by any officer 10[in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir] who is duly authorized thereto by the Central Government]:
1. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “the Executive Government of British India”.
2. Ins. ibid.
3. Subs. ibid., for “by order of Government.”.
4. The words “her Majesty” shall stand unmodified, vide the A.O. 1950.
5. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “public Act of the Governor General of India in Council”.
6. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “a Province”.
7. Subs. by ibid., for “a British Consul”.
8. Ins. by the A.O. 1948.
9. The original words beginning from “in British India” and ending with the words “to be genuine” have been
successively amended by the A.O. 1937, the A.O. 1948 and the A.O. 1950 to read as above.
10. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and the Schedule, for “in a Part B State”.
38
Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner
directed by law in that behalf.
The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or
certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper.
80. Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence.––Whenever any document is
produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of
the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorized by law to take
such evidence or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance
with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the
Court shall presume––
that the document is genuine; that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was
taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or
confession was duly taken.
81. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament and other
documents. –– The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London
Gazette or 1[any Official Gazette, or the Government Gazette] of any colony, dependency or possession
of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of Parliament 2[of
the United Kingdom] printed by the Queen’s Printer, and of every document purporting to be a document
directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form required
by law and is produced from proper custody.
3
[81A. Presumption as to Gazettes in electronic forms.––The Court shall presume the genuineness
of every electronic record purporting to be the Official Gazette, or purporting to be electronic record
directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such electronic record is kept substantially in the form
required by law and is produced from proper custody.]
82. Presumption as to document admissible in England without proof of seal or signature. ––
When any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a document which, by the law in
force for the time being in England or Ireland, would be admissible in proof of any particular in any Court
of Justice in England or Ireland, without proof of the seal or stamp or signature authenticating it, or of the
judicial or official character claimed by the person by whom it purports to be signed, the Court shall
presume that such seal, stamp or signature is genuine, and that the person signing it held, at the time when
he signed it, the judicial or official character which he claims,
and the document shall be admissible for the same purpose for which it would be admissible in
England or Ireland.
83. Presumption as to maps or plans made by authority of Government.––The Court shall
presume that maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of 4[the Central Government or any
State Government] were so made, and are accurate; but maps or plans made for the purposes of any cause
must be proved to be accurate.
84. Presumption as to collections of laws and reports of decisions. –– The Court shall presume the
genuineness of every book purporting to be printed or published under the authority of the Government of
any country, and to contain any of the laws of that country,
and of every book purporting to contain reports of decisions of the Courts of such country.
1. Subs by the A.O. 1937, for “the Gazette of India, or the Government Gazette of any L.G., or”.
2. Ins. by the A.O. 1950.
3. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, s. 92, and the Second Schedule (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
4. The original word “Government” has successively been amended by the A.O. 1937, the A.O. 1948, Act 40 of
1949 and the A.O. 1950 to read as above.
39
85. Presumption as to powers-of-attorney. –– The Court shall presume that every document
purporting to be a power-of-attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary
Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, 1[Indian] Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative 2*** of the
3
[Central Government], was so executed and authenticated.
4
[85A. Presumption as to electronic agreements. –– The Court shall presume that every electronic
record purporting to be an agreement containing the 5[electronic signature] of the parties was so
concluded by affixing the 5[electronic signature] of the parties.
85B. Presumption as to electronic records and 5[electronic signatures]. ––
(1) In any proceedings
involving a secure electronic record, the Court shall presume unless contrary is proved, that the secure
electronic record has not been altered since the specific point of time to which the secure status relates.
(2) In any proceedings, involving secure digital signature, the Court shall presume unless the contrary
is proved that—
(a) the secure 5[electronic signature] is affixed by subscriber with the intention of signing or
approving the electronic record;
(b) except in the case of a secure electronic record or a secure 5[electronic signature], nothing in
this section shall cerate any presumption, relating to authenticity and integrity of the electronic record
or any 5[electronic signature].
85C. Presumption as to 6[Electronic Signature Certificates]. –– The Court shall presume, unless
contrary is proved, that the information listed in a 6[Electronic Signature Certificate] is correct, except for
information specified as subscriber information which has not been verified, if the certificate was
accepted by the subscriber.]
86. Presumption as to certified copies of foreign judicial records. The Court may presume that
any document purporting to be a certified copy of any judicial record of 7[8* * * any country not forming
part of India or] of Her Majesty’s Dominions is genuine and accurate, if the document purports to be
certified in any manner which is certified by any representative of 9* * * the 3[Central Government] 10[in
or for] 11[such country] to be the manner commonly in use in 12[that country] for the certification of
copies of judicial records.
13
[An officer who, with respect to 14*** any territory or place not forming part of 15[India or] Her
Majesty’s Dominions, is a Political Agent there for, as defined in section 3, 16[clause
(43)], of the General
1. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “British”.
2. The Words “of Her Majesty, or” Rep. ibid.
3. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “Government of India”.
4. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, s. 92, and the Second Schedule (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
5. Subs. by Act 10 of 2009, s. 52
(e), for “digital signature” (w.e.f. 27-10-2009).
6. Subs. by ibid., s. 52
(f), for “Digital Signature Certificate” (w.e.f. 27.10.2009).
7. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for “any country not forming part”.
8. The words “a Part B State or of” omitted by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and the Schedule.
9. The words “Her Majesty or of” omitted by A.O. 1950.
10. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 8, for “resident in”.
11. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and the Schedule, for “such Part B State or Country”.
12. Subs. by s. 3 and the Schedule, ibid., for “that State or Country”.
13. Subs. by Act 5 of 1899, s. 4, for the para added by Act 3 of 1891, s. 3.
14. The words “a Part B State or” ins. by the A.O. 1950, omitted by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and the Schedule.
15. Ins. by the A.O. 1950.
16. Subs., ibid., for “clause
(40)”.
40
Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a representative of
the 1[Central Government] 2[in and for the country] comprising that territory or place].
87. Presumption as to books, maps and charts. –– The Court may presume that any book to which
it may refer for information on matters of public or general interest, and that any published map or chart,
the statements of which are relevant facts, and which is produced for its inspection, was written and
published by the person, and at the time and place, by whom or at which it purports to have been written
or published.
88. Presumption as to telegraphic messages. –– The Court may presume that a message, forwarded
from a telegraph office to the person to whom such message purports to be addressed, corresponds with a
message delivered for transmission at the office from which the message purports to be sent; but the
Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was delivered for
transmission.
3
[88A. Presumption as to electronic messages. –– The Court may presume that an electronic
message, forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the addressee to whom the
message purports to be addressed corresponds with the message as fed into his computer for transmission;
but the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent.
Explanation. –– For the purposes of this section, the expressions “addressee” and “originator” shall
have the same meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses
(b) and (za) of sub-section
(1) of
section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).]
89. Presumption as to due execution, etc., of documents not produced. ––The Court shall presume
that every document, called for and not produced after notice to produce, was attested, stamped and
executed in the manner required by law.
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.
Illustrations
(a) A has been in possession of landed property for a long time. He produces from his custody deeds relating to
the land showing his titles to it. The custody is proper.
(b) A produces deeds relating to landed property of which he is the mortgagee. The mortgagor is in possession.
The custody is proper.
1. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, for “G. of I.”
2. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and the Schedule, for “in and for that Part B State or country”.
3. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, s. 92 and the Second Schedule (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
41
(c) A, a connection of B, produces deeds relating to lands in B’s possession, which were deposited
with him by B for safe custody. The custody is proper.
1
[90A. Presumption as to electronic records five years old. –– Where any electronic record,
purporting or proved to be five years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular
case considers proper, the Court may presume that the 2[electronic signature] which purports to be the
2
[electronic signature] of any particular person was so affixed by him or any person authorised by him in
this behalf.
Explanation. –– Electronic records 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 naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved
to have had a legitimate origin, or the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an
origin probable.
This Explanation applies also to section 81A.]
CHAPTER VI. –– OF THE EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of
document. –– When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have
been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be
reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract,
grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary
evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions
hereinbefore contained.
Exception 1.––When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is
shown that any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not
be proved.
Exception 2.–– Wills 3[admitted to probate in 4[India]] may be proved by the probate.
Explanation 1.––This section applies equally to cases in which the contracts, grants or dispositions of
property referred to are contained in one document, and to cases in which they are contained in more
documents than one.
Explanation 2.–– Where there are more originals than one, one original only need be proved.
Explanation 3. –– The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other than the facts referred to
in this section, shall not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact.
Illustrations
(a) If a contract be contained in several letters, all the letters in which it is contained must be proved.
(b) If a contract is contained in a bill of exchange, the bill of exchange must be proved.
(c) If a bill of exchange is drawn in a set of three, one only need be proved.
(d) A contracts, in writing, with B, for the delivery of indigo upon certain terms. The contract mentions the fact
that B had paid A the price of other indigo contracted for verbally on another occasion.
1. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, s. 92 and the Second Schedule (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
2. Subs. by Act 10 of 2009, s. 52, for “Digital Signature” (w.e.f. 27.10.2009).
3. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 7, for “under the Indian Succession Act”.
4. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and the Schedule, for “the States”.
42
Oral evidence is offered that no payment was made for the other indigo. The evidence is
admissible.
(e) A gives B a receipt for money paid by B.
Oral evidence is offered of the payment.
The evidence is admissible.
92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement. –– When the terms of any such contract, grant or other
disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been
proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as
between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of
contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:
Proviso
(1). –– Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would
entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of
due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, 1[want or failure] of consideration, or mistake in
fact or law.
Proviso
(2). ––The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is
silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this
proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document.
Proviso
(3). ––The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the
attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved.
Proviso
(4). ––The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such
contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or
disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in
force for the time being as to the registration of documents.
Proviso
(5). –– Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are
usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved:
Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the
express terms of the contract.
Proviso
(6). –– Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is
related to existing facts.
Illustrations
(a) A policy of insurance is effected on goods “in ships from Calcutta to London”. The goods are shipped in a
particular ship which is lost. The fact that particular ship was orally excepted from the policy, cannot be proved.
(b) A agrees absolutely in writing to pay B Rs. 1,000 on the first March 1873. The fact that, at the same time, an
oral agreement was made that the money should not be paid till the thirty-first March, cannot be proved.
(c) An estate called “the Rampore tea estate” is sold by a deed which contains a map of the property sold. The
fact that land not included in the map had always been regarded as part of the estate and was meant to pass by the
deed cannot be proved.
1. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 8, for “want of failure”.
43
(d) A enters into a written contract with B to work certain mines, the property of B, upon certain
terms. A was induced to do so by a misrepresentation of B’s as to their value. This fact may be proved.
(e) A institutes a suit against B for the specific performance of a contract, and also prays that the
contract may be reformed as to one of its provisions, as that provision was inserted in it by mistake. A
may prove that such a mistake was made as would by law entitle him to have the contract reformed.
(f) A orders goods of B by a letter in which nothing is said as to the time of payment, and accepts the
goods on delivery. B sues A for the price. A may show that the goods were supplied on credit for a term
still unexpired.
(g) A sells B a horse and verbally warrants him sound. A gives B a paper in these words: “Bought of
A a horse of Rs. 500”. B may prove the verbal warranty.
(h) A hires lodgings of B, and gives B a card on which is written ––“Rooms, Rs. 200 a month.” A
may prove a verbal agreement that these terms were to include partial board.
A hires lodgings of B for a year, and a regularly stamped agreement, drawn up by an attorney, is
made between them. It is silent on the subject of board. A may not prove that board was included in the
term verbally.
(i) A applies to B for a debt due to A by sending a receipt for the money. B keeps the receipt and does
not send the money. In a suit for the amount, A may prove this.
(j) A and B make a contract in writing to take effect upon the happening of a certain contingency.
The writing is left with B, who sues A upon it. A may show the circumstances under which it was
delivered.
93. Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend ambiguous document. –– When the language used
in a document is, on its face, ambiguous or defective, evidence may not be given of facts which would
show its meaning or supply its defects.
Illustrations
(a) A agrees, in writing, to sell a horse to B for “Rs. 1,000 or Rs. 1,500”. Evidence cannot be given to
show which price was to be given.
(b) A deed contains blanks. Evidence cannot be given of facts which would show how they were
meant to be filled.
94. Exclusion of evidence against application of document to existing facts. –– When language
used in a document is plain in itself, and when it applies accurately to existing facts, evidence may not be
given to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts.
Illustration
A sells to B, by deed, “my estate at Rampur containing 100 bighas”. A has an estate at Rampur containing
100 bighas. Evidence may not be given of the fact that the estate meant to be sold was one situated at a different
place and of a different size.
95. Evidence as to document unmeaning reference to existing facts. –– When language used in a
document is plain in itself, but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to show
that it was used in a peculiar sense.
Illustration
A sells to B, by deed, “my house in Calcutta”.
A had no house in Calcutta, but it appears that he had a house at Howrah, of which B had been in possession
since the execution of the deed.
These facts may be proved to show that the deed related to the house at Howrah.
44
96. Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several
persons. –– When the facts are such that the language used might have been meant to apply to any one,
and could not have been meant to apply to more than one, of several persons or things, evidence may be
given of facts which show which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to.
Illustrations
