Section 84

This provision continues a rule first found in Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Powers-of-attorney are often used to let one person act legally on behalf of another, sometimes across long distances or different countries. Requiring proof of authenticity every single time would slow down transactions and litigation. So the law creates a rebuttable presumption: if the document shows it was executed before and authenticated by a recognized authority (like a notary or consul), courts can treat it as genuine without demanding fresh proof, unless there is a real challenge.

Indian courts, interpreting the identical predecessor provision (Section 85 of the Evidence Act, 1872), have generally held that this presumption is rebuttable — it shifts the burden to the person disputing the document to show it is forged or improperly executed. Courts have also clarified that the presumption applies specifically to powers-of-attorney authenticated by the listed authorities, and does not automatically extend to every kind of document just because it is notarized.

• Myth: This presumption means the power-of-attorney can never be challenged in court.
  Fact: The presumption is rebuttable — anyone who has real evidence that the document is forged or wasn't properly authenticated can still challenge it in court.
• Myth: Any notarized document automatically gets this special presumption.
  Fact: This provision applies specifically to documents purporting to be powers-of-attorney authenticated by the listed authorities (notary, court, judge, magistrate, consul, or central government representative) — not to every notarized paper.