Phillips, J.

1. The appellants raise an objection that Exhibit A, which is a registration copy of a sale-deed executed in 1888, has not been properly proved, because the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act cannot be drawn, as the document was less than 30 years old when it was first produced in Court. When the case was first tried, the Munsif naturally did not consider whether Section 90 was applicable because the document was obviously not 30 years old at that time. But after finding that the loss of the original was not satisfactorily proved, he refused to allow the sale to be proved by secondary evidence, whether oral or documentary in the shape of Exhibit A. Therefore, although this document was marked as Exhibit A, it was not treated as evidence in, the suit.

2. On appeal the suit was remanded for re-trial and when it came on for re-trial the sale-deed, of which Exhibit A is a copy, was more than 30 years old; and it has been laid down so long ago as Minu Sirkar v. Rhedoy Nath Roy 5 C.L.R. 135 that in applying the presumption allowed by Section 90 of the Evidence Act, a period of 30 years is to be reckoned not from the date upon which the document is filed i