P (PLP)

Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 103‑Official record destroyed by fire‑Deed‑writer's register produced by Party‑Onus shifts to opposite party. In the last flare up in the Gujranwala district the entire official record, perhaps barring certain exceptions, was reduced to ashes with the result that it was physically impossible for the mortgagors to produce more reliable and authentic evidence‑ than the one submitted by them. It is significant that the original deed writer's register produced by the mortgagors has been obtained from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala. With the production, therefore, of this register and the relevant entries dated the 16th July 1892, contained therein the onus obviously was shifted to the mortgagees and it was for them to have discharged it satisfactorily. ORDER: This is a second appeal against the order of the Commissioner dated the 25th April, 1949, by which he accepted the appeal preferred by the mortgagees (Nawab and Rehmat Khan) on the plea that the entries in the deed‑writer's register of 1892 do not specify which land was being mortgaged by means of the said mortgage' deed. He remarked that "one gets an impression that the land which was then being mortgaged has some connection with the land in dispute but the former is so indefinite that one cannot base any conclusions on it. It is, therefore, clear that the Collector was not justified in thinking that the land in dispute was originally mortgaged in 1892". The parties with their counsel present and heard.. It may be pointed out at the outset that as the title given to the Act itself will indicate facilities were being provided to the mortgagors whose lands remained uuder mortgage for a fairly long period viz., before the year 1901, so that the financially weaker element of the society namely the petty Zamindars may not be exploited by the comparatively richer class by retaining their land for an indefinite period. In the present case the learned Commissioner seems to have laid stress on the point that the solitary document viz., the deed‑writer's register does not show conclusively that the land in dispute was actually mortgaged in 1892 and the benefit of doubt has, therefore, been given to the mortgagees who enjoy mortgagee rights in the land till this day. The learned Commissioner seems to have lost sight of the fact that in the last flare up in the Gujranwala district the entire official record, perhaps barring certain exceptions, was reduced to ashes with the result that it was physically impossible for the mortgagors to produce more reliable and authentic evidence than the one submitted by them. It is significant that the original deed‑writer's register, produced by the mortgagors has been obtained from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala. With the production, therefore, of this register and the relevant entries dated the 16th July, 1892, contained therein the onus obviously was shifted to the mortgagees and it was for them to have discharged it satisfactorily. This onus, to my mind, has not been satisfactorily discharged and I, therefore, see no reason to uphold the order of the Commissioner and accordingly set it aside and restore that of the Collector dated the 8th February; 1949. Revision petition of Hussain Khan is hereby accepted. K. M. A. Revision accepted.