Gift deed proof and Section 90 presumption depend on proper attestation and age at tender in evidence.

A gift of immovable property must be proved by a registered instrument and, where attestation is required, execution must be established by examining at least one attesting witness or by the alternate mode permitted when no attesting witness is available. The appellant failed to examine an attesting witness and did not satisfactorily prove handwriting or signature to satisfy the statutory exception. The presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act applies only when the document is shown to be thirty years old at the time it is tendered in evidence, not when judgment is delivered. Because the deed had not completed thirty years at tender, the presumption was unavailable and the decree was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant proved the gift deed in accordance with law and could invoke the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872 despite the document not having attained thirty years at the time it was tendered in evidence.

Analysis: A gift of immovable property must be effected by a registered instrument and, where required by law to be attested, execution must be proved by calling at least one attesting witness, or, if no attesting witness is available, by the alternate mode contemplated by the Evidence Act. The appellant did not examine any attesting witness and did not satisfactorily prove their handwriting or the executant's signature to bring the case within the exception for proof where no attesting witness is found. The presumption under Section 90 is available only when the document purports to be and is proved to be thirty years old at the relevant time of proof. The relevant date is when the document is tendered in evidence and its genuineness becomes a matter for proof, not the date of the trial court's judgment. As the gift deed was tendered before completing thirty years, the statutory presumption could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The gift deed was not duly proved and the appellant was not entitled to the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872; the respondent's decree was therefore sustained and the appeal failed.

---