RFA No. 2013 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2013 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.2.2010 ... Mehma Singh and others ................Appellants vs. Smt. Baljit Kaur .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate and Sh. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the appellants ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is a regular first appeal directed by the appellants against the judgment dated 31.10.1988 passed by District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which an application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), for apportionment of the compensation awarded in respect of share of Gurdial Singh in Shamlat Deh of village Dhanas, U.T., Chandigarh, in respect of LAC No. 74 of 1981 decided by the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh, on 30.5.1984, was dismissed. The applicant-appellants moved reference under Section 30 of the Act, claiming that they have purchased the share of Gurdial Singh in the Shamlat Deh in the year 1957, through a registered sale RFA No. 2013 of 1988 -2- deed. The applicant-appellants are predecessor in interest of Gulab Singh. Gurdial Singh filed reply, contesting the claim of the applicant-appellants. The following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether Mehma Singh and others are entitled to the compensation of the acquired land or Gurdial Singh etc. are entitled to the compensation? 2. Relief. Applicant-appellants examined Baljit Kaur as AW-1, Sher Singh as AW-2 and one Gurmail Singh, who has produced the sale deed Exhibit P-1. In rebuttal, Parminder Singh s/o Gurdial Singh appeared as RW-1. The learned trial Court after appraising the evidence, returned the finding on issue No. 1 against the applicant-appellants and it was held that the LRs of Gurdial are entitled to the compensation. In view of finding on issue No.1, the application for apportionment filed by the applicant-appellants was dismissed. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid judgment, the present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants have been non-suited on the ground that sale deed Exhibit P-1 has not been proved in accordance with law. It is contended that the said sale deed is more than 30 years old document and in view of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, the said sale deed would be deemed to have been proved and as such the provisions of Section 68 RFA No. 2013 of 1988 -3- of the Indian Evidence Act, are not attracted. I have carefully considered the said submission and have also gone through the record of the case. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, envisages as under:- “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: [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 Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]” From the bare perusal of the said provisions of law, it is revealed that in case a registered document is specifically denied in that case, the same can be proved by examining the witness of the said document. Admittedly, in the present case except the registration Clerk, no witness of the sale deed has been examined. Moreover, the original sale deed has not seen the light of the day. So far as, the applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, is concerned, I am of the considered view that the said RFA No. 2013 of 1988 -4- provisions are also not attracted on the facts of the present case. Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, lays down 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 persons 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.” From the bare perusal of the said provisions of law, it is clear that 30 years old document can only be considered in case the original is produced. The wording of the said Section says that signature and every other part of such document would be presumed to be in the handwriting of the person purported to have executed. The other requirement of the law, according to Section 90 of the Indian RFA No. 2013 of 1988 -5- Evidence Act, is that document should have come from proper custody. The original sale deed has not been produced. So, that presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, is not attracted to the facts of the present case. No other point has been urged before me. So, in view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 3.2.2010 Judge chugh