1989SCMR704 (PLP)

NAIMUDDIN, J.‑‑In this appeal leave was granted to consider the question whether at the time of execution of the sale‑deed the respondent was a minor and whether the extract from the register of births and deaths linked the respondent with the extract. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the respondent tiled a suit for cancellation of the sale‑deed registered on 23rd January, 1978, conveying her land to the appellants, in the Court of Civil Judge, Depalpur, on the ground that at the time of registration she was only about 13 or 14 years of age and was a minor and could not enter into any contract and that somebody else impersonating her was made to appear by the appellant before the Sub‑Registrar. The appellant denied the claim and asserted that she was at the relevant time major and there was no fraud committed. It may be pertinent to state here that in the plaint the respondent described herself as Sardar Bcgum alias Noor Nishan daughter of Shah Muhammad, caste Rajput Watto resident of Mauza Kot Baidi, Tehsil Depalpur District Okara_ The appellants did not at all question in their written statement that the respondent was not Sardar Begum alias Noor Nishan. It may be mentioned that in the sale‑deed she was described as Noor Nishan daughter of Shah Muhammad caste Rajput Watto resident of Mauza Kot Baidi. The sale deed was attested by Haji Muhammad Ram7an, Lnmbardar Panjripura and Ghulam Farid son of Shah Muhammad, the brother of the respondent. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge by the judgment and decree dated 9th,October, 1986. The respondent took the matter in appeal which was heard by Additional District Judge IV, Okara, who by the judgment dated 10th January, 1987, allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge and decreed the suit for recovery of possession holding that the respondent had proved her case beyond reasonable doubt that she was minor at the time of execution of the sale‑deed which was therefore void. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree the appellants filed a revision application, being C.R.74‑D/1987, in the High Court which was dismissed by a learned Judge by the order dated 21st September, 1987, holding that the finding whether the respondent was minor or major at the relevant time was a finding of fact and could not be easily disturbed in revision. We have heard Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate. The learned counsel submitted that firstly, the certified copy of the extract from the register of births and deaths was inadmissible in evidence; secondly, it was wrongly brought on record; and thirdly, the extract from register relates to Sardar Begum who was born on 14th September, 1963, while the property sold was by Noor Nishan and therefore it was not relevant. All the submissions are devoid of any legal force. Taking up the first submission it may be stated that the municipal registers of births and deaths are a public record within the meaning of section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1877 (Article 85 of Oanun‑e‑Shahadat Order 1984); and therefore certified copies of entries in them are admissible in evidence. (See Anis‑ur‑Rehman v. Bent Ram I (59 P.R. 1901) and Principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence by M.Monti, page 786 (Pakistan Edition). See also Jai Bhagwan v. Gutto and others (A I R F 1934 Oudh 167) and Mst. Anwari Jan v. Baldua and another (A I R 1936 Allahabad 218). Therefore, appellants could prove her age by production of certified copy of the relevant entries of the register of births and deaths and the Court was bound under section 79 of the Evidence Act to presume that the certified copy was genuine. It was, however, submitted that there is no presumption as to correctness of the entries in the register therefore, the certified copy could not prove that respondent's date of birth was 14th September, 1963. This date of birth was recorded on 20th September, 1903, within six days of the birth. At that time there could be no need or reason to give a wrong date of birth. Therefore, this must be her real date of birth and would and should prevail over the oral evidence in this case. Taking up the second submission, it is correct that this document was not relied upon in the plaint nor was it filed in Court before the trial but was produced at the time of recording the evidence nonetheless the fact remains that it was brought on record without any objection from the appellants. Thus they, r waived the objection. Therefore, the second submission also has no force. As regards the last submission it may be observed that the appellants neither in their written statement claimed that Sardar Begum and Noor Nishan is not one and the same person nor did they, during the course of trial claim thai they had purchased the land from Noor Nishan and the respondent who described herself in the title of the plaint as Sardar Begum alias Noor Nishan was not one and the same person or that the two were different persons, or that they did not purchase the land from Sardar Begum alias Noor Nishan. The Additional District Judge in his judgment has observed that "in the present case the identity of the plaintiff/appellant (respondent before us) is not disputed at all by therespondents (appellants before us)". He has further relied on the evidence of Talib Hussain (P.W.1) who deposed that the respondent is known by the name of Sardar Begum and Mst. Noor Nishan and that he was not cross‑examined on this point. Therefore, this submission is also devoid of any force. In the result we dismiss this appeal with costs. A.A./M‑687/S Appeal dismissed.