Consider the following statements:
- Presumption as to documents thirty-years old is mandatory
- A child is not competent to testify
- Doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable against the government
- Privilege granted to lawyers under section 126 aims at the protection of lawyers Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Verified Answer
A. 1 and 2
B. 2, 3 and 4
C. 4 only
D. 3 only
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect because the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding thirty-year-old documents is discretionary ('may presume'), not mandatory. Statement 2 is incorrect because Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act does not set an age limit for competence; it depends on the child's understanding and ability to give rational answers. Statement 3 is correct as the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable against the government in India. Statement 4 is incorrect because the privilege under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act is primarily for the protection of the client's confidential communications, not the lawyer's. Thus, only statement 3 is correct.