1986 PLP 2759 (MLD)

‑‑‑O.XLI, R.23‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 74, 85 & 90 Production of certified copies of Public Documents in Court Authenticity of‑‑Objection to‑‑Where certified copies of Public Documents, authenticity of which was not under challenge, were produced in Trial Court with permission of Appellate Court on remand, production thereof, held, would entitle opposing party to challenge authenticity of such documents or correctness of copies thereof in Trial Court‑‑Failure of opposing‑party to avail such opportunity before Trial Court, would disentitle such party to challenge authenticity of such documents subsequently before Appellate Court‑‑Appellate Court in circumstances erred in law in keeping such documents out of consideration. (c) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.10 a 11‑‑Settlement Scheme No.I, paras. 33, 37 a 38‑‑Transfer of evacuee property to associates‑‑Determination of respective portions of transferees‑‑Effect on .subsequent sale of respective portion‑‑Where agreement of association executed between original to transferees of evacuee property and respective P . T . O. and P . T . D . issued to them by Settlement Authority, clearly and sufficiently had established specific portion and limit of area in possession of respective transferees subsequent vendee of specified portion of one of two transferees, held, would have no locus standi to file partition suit against other transferee in respect of property which had already been duly partitioned through agreement of association between original transferees and respective P . T . O . and P . T . D . holders‑‑Subsequent vendee in circumstances could not claim right in disputed property more than specified portion sold and delivered to him by respective transferee, while vendee failed to produce any evidence to rebut a cumulative evidentiary value of agreement of association between original transferees and of respective P.T.O. and P.T.D. holders. Sh. Anwarul Haq for Petitioners. Shahzad Jahangir for Settlement Department. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1985. This revision petition under section 115, C . P. C . arose out of a suit filed by Sultan Ahmad respondent for partition of the suit property on 12‑6‑1973 with the averments that the property described in the suit was a joint property and that 1/3rd share of the suit property was transferred to one‑ Noor Muhammad son of Imam Din the original transferee and 2/3rd share to Muhammad Siddique by the Settlement Authorities. This 1/3rd share was purchased by the plaintiff‑respondent and as the defendant‑petitioner was in possession of more valuable part the plaintiff sought partition of the suit property. The suit was contested by the petitioner‑defendant with the assertion that the suit property was transferred to Imam Din the father of Noor Muhammad the predecessor‑in‑interest of the plaintiff‑respondent and to the defendant through Association Deed by the Settlement Authorities. The parties were in possession of their respective portions and by purchasing the 1/3rd share from Noor Muhammad son of the transferee the plaintiff- respondent has no cause of action to claim partition as the plot stood already partitioned between them. The learned trial Court framed as many as 4 issues and after recording the evidence, decreed the suit on 22‑10‑1978. On appeal of the petitioner the Additional District Judge vide judgment, dated 3‑2‑1982 set aside the finding of the learned trial Court and remanded the case for fresh decision after recording the additional evidence. It is pertinent to note that the learned Additional District Judge vide remand order, dated 3‑2‑1982 permitted the petitioner‑defendant to produce the copy of the .P.T.O. and copy of the Agreement of Association with the observation that the Agreement of Association shows the terms and conditions which were agreed between the parties as to share and sides of the 1/3rd and 2/3rd shares; that both the documents were the copies of public record and that their authenticity was not disputed. After remand the learned trial Court in view of his finding on issue No.3 dismissed the suit vide judgment‑ and decree, dated 7‑3‑1984. This decree was then challenged by the respondent‑plaintiff by filing an appeal which was accepted by Mr. Riazul Hassan Alvi, Additional District Judge, Gujrat vide judgment and decree, dated 4‑12‑1984. Thereafter, the present revision petition was filed by the defendant.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the trial Court made available by the learned counsel for the parties. The admitted facts are that plot measuring 8 Marlas was applied for by Imam Din father of Noor Muhammad. Imam Din had also entered into Agreement of Association surrendering 2/3rd share in the plot in favour of Muhammad Siddique the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner in lieu of payment of price of the entire plot, i.e. suit property by Muhammad Siddique through adjustment‑.from the compensation book. The 1/3rd share in the property was retained by Imam Din P . T . O : and P. T . D . were also issued in favour of aforesaid Imam Din and Muhammad Siddique. It was claimed that Noor Muhammad had also agreed to sell 1/3rd share in the plot to Muhammad Siddique vide agreement, dated 12‑5‑1969. This fact was however, controverted by the respondent. This 1/3rd share was then sold to Sultan Ahmad plaintiff vide sale‑deed, dated 4‑9‑1972. The main dispute raised is that the parties to the Deed of Agreement of Association had not specified the 2/3rd and 1/3rd share of the plot got transferred from the Settlement Authorities. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Deed of Agreement of Association produced as additional evidence was not the Agreement of Association entered into by Imam Din father of Noor Muhammad, the vendor of Sultan Ahmad plaintiff. It was added that mere production of certified copy of Agreement of Association (Exh.D.W.6/1) was rightly not relied upon by the learned appellate Court as the original document was neither produced in Court nor the said original was formally proved by production of any of the attesting witnesses. He submitted that the Court requires strict proof of documents coming from the Settlement Record because it is common knowledge that spurious and fake documents are daily being produced. There is no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. The fact that in certain case manipulated and fake documents seemingly issued by the Settlement Authorities have been produced does not furnish sufficient basis to draw the presumption that each and every document produced from th official custody is to be looked at with suspicion and is to be ruled out of consideration. Each and every document produced in each case has to be evaluated on its own merits. In the present case the permission to produce the Agreement of Association and the P.T.O. was granted vide order, dated 3‑2‑1982 by the learned Additional District Judge observing that the authenticity of the same was not under challenge. After production of the said document in the trial Court opportunity was available to the respondent to challenge the said document and to show that the document was not the document originally filed before the Settlement Authorities or that the certified copy of the Agreement of Association produced through D.W.6 was not the correct copy of the Agreement of Association available on record. In these circumstances it is too late to contend that the Agreement of Association Exh.D.W.6/1, proved through production of certified copy through D.W.6 was either not formally proved or was not the correct copy of the documents available on record or was not the same which was executed by the parties in the year 1960. The learned Additional District Judge erred in law in keeping this document out of consideration. This Agreement of Association (Exh.D.W.6/1) read with P.T.O. (Exh.D.W.6/2) and P.T.D. (Exh. P‑1) sufficiently establish that the 2/3rd share on they Northern side was transferred to Muhammad Siddique and 1/3rd share on the Southern side was retained by Imam Din the original transferee. In any case Sultan Ahmad respondent‑plaintiff has no right to clam partition on the assertion that the suit property was joint property perusal of the registered sale‑deed through which the plaintiff‑purchase 1/3rd share shows that possession of 1/3rd share which was purchased by him was delivered to him. He had not thus purchased 1/3rd share out of the entire plot. The portion in his possession admittedly falls on the Southern side and he obtained the possession of the same. The area so purchased is admittedly equal to the one‑third share which was retained and possessed by Noor Muhammad the son of Imam Din the original transferee. Sultan Ahmad plaintiff in these circumstances was not entitled to claim partition by filing the present suit. He cannot obviously claim any right more than the one conveyed to him through the sale‑deed executed in his favour. This transfer of the specific portion obtained through the sale‑deed coupled with the fact that no evidence was produced to rebut the accumulative evidentiary value of the Agreement of Association, P.T.O. and P.T.D. clearly establish that the plaintiff‑respondent had no locus standi to file the partition suit. Muhammad Siddique predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner was in possession of his portion transferred to him through deed of association, P.T.O. and P.T.D.

3. For the reasons given above the judgment and decree, dated 4‑12‑1984 of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat is set aside and the decree of dismissal of the suit, dated 7‑3‑1984 of the learned trial' Court is restored. The revision petition is accepted with costs. H . B . T . Revision petition accepted.