2023 PLP 1329 (MLD)

SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J.

Through this regular second appeal, the appellant has assailed the sanctity of the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ahmadpur East, vide which, the suit of the respondents was decreed in their favour.

2. The brief facts necessary for the decision of this regular second appeal are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of agreement regarding the land detailed in the head note of the plaint. The claim of the respondents/plaintiffs is that the predecessor in interest of the appellants/defendants was the original owner of the land who entered into an agreement to sell regarding the suit property with the respondents/plaintiffs through the registered agreement to sell dated 15.01.1964 in presence of the witnesses and possession of the land was handed over to the respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs are still in possession of the suit land. Infact; the property was state land which was originally allotted to one Yameen and Qazi Abdul Rahim from whom Qazi Ghulam Mustafa purchased the land after that he entered into agreement to sell with the respondents/plaintiffs with the condition that the respondents/plaintiffs will pay the rest of the installments due regarding the allotment of the land. Only two installments were paid by the predecessor in interest of the appellants/defendants Qazi Ghulam Mustafa which were then also repaid to him by the respondents/plaintiffs. According to the respondents, they had paid the amount of installments to Qazi Abdul Rahim and Qazi Ghulam Mustafa was the owner of half share alongwith Qazi Abdul Rahim. The respondents/plaintiffs paid all the installments alongwith Qazi Abdul Rahim and they are in possession of the land without any interruption since then. It was contended that thereafter; predecessor in interest of the appellants/defendants resiled from his commitment and filed an ejectment application before the Assistant Commissioner, Ahmadpur East which was dismissed after hearing on 30.11.1981 where it was held by the revenue court that the predecessor in interest of the appellants/defendants Qazi Ghulam Mustafa could not prove himself the owner of the property. It was also the contention of the respondents/ plaintiffs that on 17.11.1981, the predecessor in interest of the appellants/defendants admitted the receiving of purchase consideration amount about the disputed land. The predecessor in interest of the appellants/defendants Qazi Ghulam Mustafa filed a suit for specific performance regarding his share in dispute against Qazi Abdul Rahim and Muhammad Yameen despite the fact that he had already sold his share in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and in that suit, he did not implead the respondents/plaintiffs. The suit was decreed in favour of Qazi Ghulam Mustafa and on the basis of that decree, mutations Nos.1630 and No.322 dated 04.08.2003 were sanctioned in their favour. Due to which, the cause of action arose for filing the suit to the respondents/plaintiffs.

3. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. Respondent/ plaintiff produced Fayyaz Ahmad Record-keeper District Registrar as PW-1, Rafique Ahmed Patwari Mouza Bhurran as PW-2, Muhammad Iqbal Patwari Mouza Khairpur Daha as PW-3 and respondent/plaintiff Wahid Bukhsh appeared as PW-4. In documentary evidence, the respondents/plaintiffs produced the following evidence;-

1. Attested copy of agreement to sell dated 15.01.1964 (Ex.P-1)

2. Attested copy of register Girdawari Mouza Khairpur Daha Kharif 2007 to Rabi 2010 (Ex.P-2)

3. Attested copy of register Girdawari Mouza Bhurran Kharif 2006 to Rabi 2010 (Ex.P-3)

4. Attested copy of plaint titled "Mst. Zainab Bibi v. Wahid Bukhsh (Ex.P-4)

5. Attested copy of application to return the original stamp paper (Ex.P-5)

6. Attested copy of order sheet (Ex.P-6)

7. Attested copy of application for summoning of original agreement to sell dated 15.02.1989 (Ex.P-7) Whereas; Tariq Anwar Nadeem appellant/defendant appeared as DW-1 and in documentary evidence, appellants/defendants tendered;

1. Attested copy of the suit for permanent injunction dated 03.02.1983 titled "Wahid Bukhsh v. Qazi Ghulam Mustafa along with the order sheet (Ex.D-1)

2. Attested copy of the suit for specific performance titled Wahid Bukhsh v. Mst. Zainab Bibi" dated 20.05.2006 along with order sheet (Ex.D-2)

3. Attested copy of the order of the appellate court (Ex.D-3)

4. Attested copy of plaint dated 03.09.2003 titled "Wahid Bukhsh v. Tariq Anwer and others" along with order sheet (Ex.D-4)

5. Attested copy of suit titled "Qazi Ghulam Mustafa v. Hafiz Muhammad Yameen" suit for specific performance dated 04.12.1978 (Ex.D-5)

6. Attested copy of the mutation No.995 of Mouza Khairpur Daha (Ex.D-6)

7. Attested copy of mutation No.222 of Mouza Burran (Ex.D-7)

8. Attested copy of Jamabandi pertaining to the year 1983-84 Khairpur Daha (Ex.D-8)

9. Attested copy of Jamabandi of Khairpur Daha for the year 2010-11 (Ex.D-9)

10. Attested copy of Jamabandi of Mouza Bhurran for the year 2009-10 (Ex.D-10)

11. Attested copy of register Girdawari of Mouza Khairpur Daha for the year 1979-80 (Ex.D-11)

12. Attested copy of register Girdawari of Khairpur Daha 1980-81 (Ex.D-12)

13. Attested copy of register Girdawari Mouza Bhurran for 1984 to 1988 (Ex.D-13)

14. Attested copy of register Girdawari Khairpur Daha for the year 1988-89 (Ex.D-14)

15. Attested copy of register Girdawari for the year 2006 to 2010 of Mouza Bhurran (Ex.D-15)

4. Learned Civil Judge, thereafter, vide order dated 11.03.2013 dismissed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs holding that the respondents/plaintiffs were failed to prove the execution of the document i.e. agreement to sell, as the original document/agreement to sell dated 15.01.1964 was not produced by the respondents/plaintiffs. No marginal witness of the document was produced and even it was not mentioned where the marginal witnesses were alive or dead. The learned Civil Judge also non-suited the respondents/plaintiffs on the basis of limitation. That the suit was filed on 10.11.2013 on the basis of agreement to sell dated 15.01.1964 after lapse of so many time without explaining the logic/reasons. This judgment and decree was assailed before the learned Additional District Judge who after hearing the parties set-aside the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2014 while holding that the execution of the agreement to sell was proved by the respondents/plaintiffs. Learned Additional District Judge based his judgment on the analogy that the agreement to sell Ex.P-1 was a 30 years old document which has the authenticity in the eye of law and also based his judgment on the fact that the appellants/defendants filed an application for ejectment before the revenue authority which was dismissed by the revenue authority and in that application there were certain admissions on the part of the appellants/defendants regarding the receiving of the consideration amount and it was also admitted by the predecessor in interest of the appellants/defendants that possession was delivered under the agreement to sell to the respondents/plaintiffs.

5. Counsel for the appellants/defendants argued that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit on the basis of agreement to sell dated 15.01.1964 (Ex.P-1) which was neither executed by Qazi Ghulam Mustafa nor any agreement to sell regarding the property was settled between the parties. It was argued that on 15.01.1964 Qazi Ghulam Mustafa was having no status in the property and it was infact a state land which was original allotted to Qazi Abdul Rahim and Muhammad Yameen, subsequently; Qazi Ghulam Mustafa purchased half share from Muhammad Yameen. It was argued that document Ex.P-1 was a pre-mature agreement to sell. By that time; neither Qazi Ghulam Mustafa had any right in the property nor he was entitled to enter into contract for the sale of the said property. Even by that time; he had not entered into any agreement with Muhammad Yameen. It was argued that neither the original allotment letter had been purchased by the respondents/ plaintiffs that Qazi Ghulam Mustafa was given the allotment order for the same property or he applied for the allotment on that property. Counsel further argued that the said agreement to sell Ex.P-1 dated 15.01.1964 is fictitious and forged document. No witness of the said document had been produced before the court. The original document also has not been produced. Even the copy produced before the court is inadmissible to be considered in evidence. The witness who have been produced to prove the same cannot be relied upon because they are neither the witnesses of the agreement to sell nor they are witnesses of the document. The witness who only certifies that the copy was issued with a signature, cannot be said to be the witness of that document. Counsel argued that this is also notable that the witness was neither summoned by the court nor he appeared in the court with the permission or authority of any authorized person. It was argued that it was totally timed barred claim of the respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents/ plaintiffs have made their claim on the basis of revenue proceedings which cannot be considered to ascertain the ownership of any party. Furthermore; the proceedings of the revenue department cannot be taken into consideration for the confirmation of any title of the property. It was argued that the respondents/plaintiffs had knowledge of the proceedings of the civil suit between Muhammad Yameen and Qazi Ghulam Mustafa which was decreed in favour of Qazi Ghulam Mustafa vide Ex.D-5 and on the basis of which, the mutation was sanctioned on 30.12.1978 vide Ex.D-7. The respondents/plaintiffs were having the knowledge of the same. The respondents/plaintiffs neither tried to be the party in the suit which was filed by Qazi Ghulam Mustafa against Muhammad Yameen and Qazi Abdul Rahim nor they filed any application under section 12(2), C.P.C. when the same was decreed. It was argued that their claim regarding this property on the basis of agreement to sell dated 15.01.1964 is totally time barred. It was argued that even if the statement of the respondents/plaintiffs is perused, that does not make sense that a child of 05/6 years age will enter into an agreement for a property. Counsel argued that there are many contradictions in the statements of PW-4 regarding the execution of the document, existence of document and payment of consideration amount. The learned Additional District Judge had not analyzed the evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs as required. The genuineness of the agreement to sell was in question which was not proved, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 11.01.2012 is totally against the law and facts hence, the same is liable to be set-aside. Further adds that; the court has not interpreted and applied the law in a correct way. The agreement to sell dated 15.01.1964 (Ex.P-1) is unilateral document which cannot be enforced mutually being contrary to conditions of a valid agreement contained in sections 12 and 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.

6. Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, on the other hand, resisted the arguments and argued that the respondents/plaintiffs have proved their case beyond any shadow of doubt. It was argued that Fayyaz Ahmad Chohan Record-keeper District Registrar, Bahawalpur has produced the copy of registered document i.e. agreement to sell dated 15.01.1964. He certified regarding the existence of the document (Ex.P-1). He also verified that the said copy of Ex.P-1 was issued with his signature and that was the correct copy of registered agreement to sell available in the revenue office. Counsel argued that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly observed that the evidence regarding the possession of the land and regarding execution of the document adduced by PW-2 and PW-3 was confidence inspiring. The respondents were in possession of the suit land. Whereas, the appellants/defendants have no possession on any portion of the land. It was argued that Qazi Ghulam Mustafa predecessor in interest of the appellants/defendants filed an application for ejectment before the Assistant Commissioner, Ahmadpur East alongwith request for getting the share of produce which was dismissed. In the proceedings before the revenue court, said Qazi Ghulam Mustafa predecessor in interest of the appellants/defendants had admitted before the revenue officer that the said land had been sold to the respondents/plaintiffs. It was argued that the application of Ghulam Mustafa was dismissed by the Revenue Officer and against that order, no appeal was preferred. Counsel argued that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly drawn an inference from the revenue proceedings that the predecessor of the appellant Qazi Ghulam Mustafa had sold out the land to the respondents/plaintiffs. It was argued that the learned Additional District Judge also has observed that suit was filed within time. On the refusal of the appellants/plaintiffs to honour the document Ex.P-1 the suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. It was further argued that originally, the suit land was allotted to some other person from whom the right of ownership were purchased by Ghulam Mustafa who entered into contract for the same with the respondents/ plaintiffs. Since; there was no time period mentioned in Ex.P-1, therefore, from the refusal of the appellants/defendants, the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was within time. It was argued that the decision of learned Additional District Judge was in accordance with law and all the issues were settled by the learned Additional District Judge on its merits.

7. Arguments heard. Record perused.

8. There are certain queries before this court;-

1. Whether a person having no entitlement of ownership in the property, can enter into agreement to sell for that property?

2. When the original document is not produced, whether without getting permission for secondary evidence, the attested copy or the copy of the sale deed could be produced/exhibited in the evidence and if it has been exhibited in the evidence, whether it could be relied upon in the sense of the wisdom maintained in Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?

3. Whether the revenue authorities have the jurisdiction to declare the ownership of any party. And whether mere on the decision of the revenue authorities, can any party claim the ownership of the property?

4. Whether a thirty years old document attains the status of correctness even if it is not proved as required under the circumstances when its validity is challenged?

5. When time is not essence of the agreement, how the limitation for filing the suit will ascertain? Whether the suit is within time? These questions were important to reply by the concerned courts. Since; it is a judgment at variance, both the courts below have interpreted the law differently and the legal aspect of the proposition, has been differently appreciated by both the courts below. Therefore, this court considers it proper to see/analyze the queries in detail. It was suit for specific performance which was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the appellants/defendants on the basis of registered agreement to sell dated 15.01.1964. The original document i.e. alleged agreement to sell has not been produced before the court, rather it was mentioned in the evidence that whereabouts of that documents are not known. As per evidence, this document was never produced before any legal forum. According to the respondent/plaintiff Wahid Bukhsh (PW-4), he was 05/6 years of age at the time of completion of that document, whereas, his brother who is also respondents/plaintiffs was 01 year younger than him at that time. Worth of the document Ex.P-1 can be analyzed in view of statement of PW-4. In cross-examination, respondents/plaintiffs Wahid Bukhsh stated that his father had been dealing all this, so, he had no knowledge about the agreement and the document. It was also brought in the evidence that his father died in 1973 meaning thereby, prior to 1973 PW-4 came into the knowledge of the existence of Ex.P-1 i.e. the agreement to sell. In cross-examination, this witness also admits that he did not know in which year and when said factum was told to him by his father. Now, the status of Ex.P-1 can be seen in view of the document itself. Certified copy issued from the revenue department was produced in the court where signatures of Qazi Ghulam Mustafa is missing. This is interesting that no allotment letter or any document relating to the document was produced in the court to clear that what sort of right was there to Qazi Ghulam Mustafa who allegedly entered into agreement to sell with the respondents/plaintiffs. For a valid agreement, there are certain conditions mentioned in the Contract Act. Section 2 of the Contract Act explains that; "There must be atleast two persons, promissory and promisor who agreed with their free consent for a lawful object and legal consideration." Agreement by which parties do not intent to create any legal obligation could not be enforceable in law. Now; in view of this definition, Ex.P-1 is not a valid contract, as the status of Qazi Ghulam Mustafa is not settled in any way in the revenue record relating to the land for which the respondents/plaintiffs were claiming their agreement with him. Even if the definition of a contingent agreement under section 31 of the Contract Act is perused, it says; 31. "Contingent Contract" defined.

A "contingent contracts" is a contract to do or not to do something, if some event, collateral to such contract, does or does not happen."

9. In Ex.P-1 said Qazi Ghulam Mustafa had shown his concern with Qazi Abdul Rahim and Muhammad Yameen regarding the settlement of the land to some share which he subsequently got through filing the civil suit which was decreed in his favour. But at that time, when the alleged document Ex.P-1 was being written, he had no lien or right in the land because as per law, mere agreement to sell does not create any title and Qazi Ghulam Mustafa was not legally in a position to enter into an agreement for the same property. Furthermore; the respondents/plaintiffs had not produced any witness to that document to prove the same. That document was not produced in the court as per law. The original register was even not produced in the court. There is a mechanism provided in law that if original document is not available or lost, then under Article 74 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; The document could be produced through secondary evidence. For that the application may be filed before the court for getting permission to produce the document through secondary evidence. It has been noted that no such application was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for production of the secondary evidence. Even this was the stance of the respondents/plaintiffs that no witness of the said documents were available but regarding that nothing was brought on record whether they were alive or not. Under Article 80 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; It was the requirement of law that if the witnesses are either died or cannot be found that should have been proved by the claiming person. Article 80 of the Order 1984 says that; If no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the witnesses have either died or cannot be found with the document. The document was executed by the person who purports to have been done so. Neither the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application for mentioning about the whereabouts of the witnesses who were not traceable by the respondents as per the statement of PW-4 nor any efforts were made to prove their signatures on Ex.P-1, in order to prove the authenticity of Ex.P-1. No efforts were made to get comparison of the signatures on the document Ex.P-1. As nothing was stated by the respondents/plaintiffs regarding the fact that whether they are alive or not. In that case, when no procedure was adopted for the production of the document as secondary evidence, no efforts were made for proving of the same. In such a situation; when the document is under challenge then the same will lose its sanctity even being a 30 years old document. The statement of PW-1 regarding the contents of Ex.P-1 are also not reliable because his all information regarding the same based on hearsay evidence. PW-4 Wahid Bukhsh deposed in cross-examination that; He further replied that; These replies of PW-4/plaintiff cast a serious doubt on previous version of the respondents, in which, they deposed that they themselves entered into agreement to sell. His evidence is based on hearsay; which is not admissible under law. Reliance is placed on "Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Sadiq" (2007 SCMR 957), "Gulzar Ahmad and others v. Muhammad Anwar and others" (2003 SCMR 1008) and "Sarfraz Ahmad v. Rab Nawaz and others" (2012 MLD 242). In matter if financial disputes, the evidence of blood relative, close relative or dependent is not admissible, unless not proved that they were present at the place and there was no other independent witness available. Reliance is placed on "Muhammad Idrees Jag v. Mst. Unezah Shahid and another" (2004 MLD 1033).

10. The logic of the learned Additional District Judge regarding the fact that it was a 30 years old document and so reliable document, is not correct view. Inference can be drawn by the court, but mere on the basis of presumptions, court cannot decide the fate of fixing of future liability. When rules are there, court has to observe all those rules, if otherwise, the court will explain why those rules are overlooked. Because, the wisdom maintained in "Hussain Bakhsh and 5 others v. Mst. Bashiran through General Attorney" (PLD 2010 Peshawar 91) says that; "Presumption as to thirty years old document

Presumption of truth was not attached to thirty years old document, because the court must consider the evidence and apply presumption where evidence in proof of document was reliable, but it was a matter of great care and caution in those cases where the valuable rights of parties were involved in the property

Presumption of execution of such document was permissible and not imperative even, if the document be a thirty years old and was produced from proper custody." In "Abdul Aziz v. Muhammad Ashiq and others" (1991 CLC 820) it was held that; "Where execution of a registered document was denied by alleged executant, document would lose sanctity of being presumed to be correct and its veracity would depend upon quantum and quality of evidence to be produced to prove its execution

Unless it was proved by producing impeccable evidence, finding could not rest merely on presumptions." Under Article 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; "where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the court in the particular case considers proper, the court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. Production of less number of marginal witnesses of agreement to sell is fatal."

11. Another factor which needs consideration that the respondents have based their evidence on the basis of decision of the revenue cases filed by the predecessor in interest of the appellants for ejectment. This is settled principle that the revenue hierarchy have no jurisdiction to decide the matter of ownership, that proceedings even cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the ownership of the parties. The other important factor is that none of the concerned witnesses were produced in the court who could certify the factum that the appellants conceded the fact of the agreement to sell agitated by the respondents. These matters can be considered only to the extent of the jurisdiction of the concerned revenue court and the proceedings were for the specific purpose and can only be considered for that specific purpose. The learned Additional District Judge has committed an error while observing that the agreement to sell Ex.P-1 was a proved document. And he connected the same with the proceedings of the revenue proceedings.

12. So far as the possession over the land is concerned, firstly; the respondents have annexed the copy of Khasra Girdwari starting from Khareef 2007 to onward. Whereas, the previous possession of the document has not been brought on record. Furthermore; Patwari Halqa who appeared as PW-2 admitted in cross-examination that name of Wahid Bukhsh respondent is mentioned as tenant under consent in Khatooni No.95/99 while the name of Muhammad Balouch is mentioned as sharer. Mere possession under this title of the respondents is not a proof for the ownership of the respondents. The learned Additional District Judge has not correctly interpreted the document and statement of Patwari (PW-2). The evidence of the respondents regarding the statement of the agreement and regarding payment of consideration amount is totally silent, which is basic ingredient of a valid agreement. As per averments in paragraph No.2 of the plaint, it is mentioned by the respondents as; The respondents were under obligation to prove that such and such amount was settled and the same was paid to Qazi Ghulam Mustafa. The stance of the respondents/plaintiffs that they returned the amount of two installments which were already deposited by Qazi Ghulam Mustafa, to him and rest of the installments were paid by the respondents/plaintiffs, but no receipt for the payment of the same had been brought on record. Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 says; "that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it." Inference from non-production of evidence is one of the strongest presumption of fact or circumstance known to law and law allows it against the party who is withholding the evidence, which the nature of his case would be manifested. If a best piece of evidence was available with the party and the same was not produced in the court, it could be presumed that the party had some ulterior and sinister motive behind it. Reliance is placed upon "Muhammad Rafique and others v. The State and others" (2010 SCMR 385), "Manzoor Hussain v. Haji Khushi Muhammad" (2017 CLC 70), "Aijaz Ahmad v. Muhammad Ashiq and 3 others" (2017 CLC Note 5 Lahore) and "Nazeer Ahmad and another v. M. Muzaffar Hussain" (2008 SCMR 1639).

13. Section 12 of Specific Relief Act 1877 says that; "When time being the essence of the contract can be determined on the basis of the intention of the parties that contracting parties had no intention that agreement will be performed beyond the period specified in the agreement, the intention can be gathered by seeing the peth a substance of the agreement."(PLJ 2010 Lah. 200 (DB)) And if time is not essence of the contract which will be ascertained from the terms of the agreement and from the other attending circumstances. In those propositions, the learned Additional District Judge has observed that since the time was not the essence of the contract, therefore, from the refusal of the appellant/defendant, the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit within time. Whereas, in view of the evidence produced, it was not a correct view. A specific issue was framed regarding this. The appellants/ plaintiffs had produced in evidence that the respondents/plaintiffs were in the knowledge of all the civil litigation and specifically the direct litigation with the respondents/plaintiffs through the ejectment petition clears the situations in respect of their knowledge about the refusal of the appellants/defendants. Originally, Qazi Ghulam Mustafa was not the allottee of the property. He had no lien in the property at the time of the allotment to Muhammad Yameen and Qazi Abdul Rahim, but thereafter, when he filed the suit for specific performance (Ex.D-5) and in result of the suit which was decreed in his favour, he got sanctioned mutations (Ex.D-7 and Ex.D-8) in his favour. The respondents/plaintiffs could have filed the suit after the sanction of the mutation in favour of Qazi Ghulam Mustafa but they neither sent any notice to Qazi Ghulam Mustafa for honouring the alleged document Ex.P-1 nor they filed the suit at that time. Legally; they were to file application under section 12(2), C.P.C. to get the decree set-aside in favour of Qazi Ghulam Mustafa when they came to know about the decree. If it is supposed that they came to know about the decree at a later stage i.e. even after the execution of the same, then their legal right to agitate their claim under Ex.P-1, is under section 12(2), C.P.C. The respondents/ plaintiffs were unable to prove that they filed the suit within time. As per their own contention, they had the knowledge of civil litigation and the intention of Qazi Ghulam Mustafa to resile from his commitment to honour Ex.P-1, even then, they did not file the suit within time. Learned Civil Judge has rightly observed the things and disposed of the legal and factual aspects of the proposition. While deciding issue No.1, the learned Civil Judge has given the cogent reasons for non-believing the evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs regarding the execution of document Ex.P-1. Whereas, the learned Additional District Judge has constructed the judgment on issue No.1 on hearsay evidence and on illogical reasons which are merely based on presumptions. The learned Additional District Judge also has committed an error while admitting the document Ex.P-1 as valid with the view that since; it was a 30 years old document. Whereas; the learned Civil Judge has rightly observed that the execution of that document is not proved and this is settled principle that when a document is challenged, even if it is 30 years old, then the presumption of truth was not attached to that document because the court itself considered the evidence and applied presumption where evidence in proof of document is reliable. Since; the valuable rights of the parties are involved in the property, therefore, the presumption of execution of such document was permissible and not imperative even if the document is a 30 years old and was produced from the proper custody. The other issues were also settled down correctly by the learned Civil Judge whereas, the learned Additional District Judge has not concluded these issues in accordance with the evidence and while interpreting the correct law.

14. Upshot of the discussion is that the respondents/plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of document Ex.P-1. The respondents were also failed to prove that their suit was within time, therefore, the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge is hereby set-aside and in consequence whereof, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge dated 11.03.2013 is restored and upheld. The R.S.A. is allowed accordingly with costs throughout. ZH/Z-10/L Regular Second Appeal allowed.