Explain the law relating to presumption to documents thirty years old

Section 90 of the Indian evidence act provides an important presumption regarding documents. This has been mentioned in it that –
 
The Court may presume a document, which is thirty years old and is produced from custody which appears to be proper to be genuine. The date on the evidence is the prima facie evidence of its age and the parties are not required to prove the age of the evidence. 

Section 90 presumes that the documents which are 30 years old to be properly executed and attested. Such documents are not required to be proved by competent evidence. 
In simple words- Documents that are 30 years old shall be presumed to be proper.     
Examples - 
(a) A has been in possession of a 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.
(c) A, a connection of B, produces deeds relating to lands in B’s possession, which were deposited with him by В for safe custody. The custody is proper.

Presumption regarding documents are made - 
a. That the document is the handwriting of that person and contains the signature of that person of which handwriting or signature is wanted.  
b. If it is executed or attested document then it is executed or attested by that person by which it is wanted. 

Essential conditions:

The section lays down two essential conditions on which execution of a document may be presumed. These are:
 

1 The document must be 30 years old 
The period of thirty years will be calculated from the date of execution of the document. At the time of consideration of the document, it is required that this period has been completed 

2 It must be produced in the court from the proper authority 
What shall be proper custody; it is a question of fact and shall be determined by circumstances of every matter. 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. 

Illustration – Akshay has been in possession of the landed property for a long time. He produces from his custody deeds relating to the land, showing his title to it. The custody is proper. 

Thus, for the purpose of Section 90, proper custody requires that - 
(a) the place of custody should be such that the document must be there naturally; 
(b) Such person shall have the care, who should have naturally; 
(c) origin of custody must be justifiable 
(d) circumstances in a particular matter shall be such that from where it is produced, the origin would have been probable. 

Discretion of Court 

It is noteworthy that it is the discretion of the court to presume or not under section 90. It is upon the court to consider a 30 years old document as the original. The court is not bound to consider it. But such discretion must be used judicially. 
In the case of Lakhi Baroha Vs P.K Kalita it has been held by the Supreme Court that the presumption under Section 90 may be done in respect of any attested copy if it can be admitted as secondary evidence under section 65. 

Presumption about Will and Gift:

The presumption under this section is also extended to the instrument of wills. When a party claiming benefits of will he is required to prove that the testator at the time of execution of the will was in sound mind and that it was duly attested by witnesses.
 

No presumption on certified copy:
The presumption under this section does not apply to a certified copy if the original document is not produced before the court. 

90A. Presumption as to electronic records of 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 digital signature which purports to be the digital signature of any particular person was so affixed by him or any person authorized by him in this behalf.