Any document older than thirty years is automatically treated as true and valid.

The presumption only covers that the signatures, handwriting, and execution/attestation are genuine — it does not confirm that the contents or facts stated in the document are true.

The document must come from the safest or most secure location to qualify.

Courts have held 'proper custody' just means a natural, reasonably explainable place — not necessarily the most secure or official one.

The court must presume the document is genuine once it's thirty years old.

The word used is 'may presume', meaning it is discretionary — the court can decline to presume genuineness if circumstances raise doubt.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 92

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.—The Explanation to section 80 shall also apply to this section. 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 shall be proper.§

(b) A produces deeds relating to landed property of which he is the mortgagee. The mortgagor is in possession. The custody shall be proper.§

(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 shall be proper.§

Why this exists

Very old documents often outlive the witnesses who signed or attested them, making formal proof of signatures or execution practically impossible. Courts and legislatures long ago recognized that requiring live testimony for every thirty-year-old deed would make old titles and records unusable. This rule (carried over from the old Indian Evidence Act, section 90, into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam as section 92) allows courts to presume genuineness when the document's age and the place it comes from together suggest it is authentic, easing the burden of proving ancient transactions like land titles.

How courts read it

Indian courts, interpreting the identical predecessor provision (Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872), have held that 'proper custody' does not mean the best or only possible custody, but any custody that is natural and reasonably explained given the circumstances — for example, a document found with someone who has an interest in it or a plausible connection to the original parties. Courts have also clarified that the presumption is discretionary ('may presume'), not mandatory, and can be rebutted by contrary evidence. The presumption covers due execution and attestation but does not by itself prove the truth of the document's contents.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Any document older than thirty years is automatically treated as true and valid.
Fact: The presumption only covers that the signatures, handwriting, and execution/attestation are genuine — it does not confirm that the contents or facts stated in the document are true.
Myth: The document must come from the safest or most secure location to qualify.
Fact: Courts have held 'proper custody' just means a natural, reasonably explainable place — not necessarily the most secure or official one.
Myth: The court must presume the document is genuine once it's thirty years old.
Fact: The word used is 'may presume', meaning it is discretionary — the court can decline to presume genuineness if circumstances raise doubt.