2000 PLP 357 (CLC)

"I have seen the original bid sheet that Shop C/5552 is written in ink plus A vide pencil. It is correct to suggest that there are no signature or initial on plus A which is added by pencil in the original bid sheet regarding Property No.C/5552. ... It is correct that plus A which is shown in the property it could be Balakhana, a Baithak or internal part of the original property etc. etc. or there are two doors .of one property." This postiche, i.e. superfluously and inappropriately super added to a finished work, further causes to fraught the genuineness of bid sheet with extreme doubt and in such a wake, this document cannot be employed to produce a result of conferring title upon respondent. Thus, the ensuing issuance of P.T.D. (EXk.P.W.1/3) in the name of Haji Zamurdi on 2‑1‑1969 and subsequent transfers to respondents on 11‑6‑1974 of an independent shop is of no legal consequence. I feel to reiterate that Shop No.C‑5552 to which subsequently, "+ A" was added in the manner stated above had already been transferred to one Abdul Karim.

10. The P.T.D. (Exh.P.W.1/3) shows that on 2‑1‑1969, a shop was transferred to Haji Zamurdi but on 9‑10‑1973 respondent Islamuddin madc an application to Deputy Settlement Commissioner D.1. Khan as follows:‑‑ The tenor of this application shows that he was claiming two numbers, i.e. C/5552 and 52‑A. On this application, it appears that some enquiry was initiated and on the reverse page of application (EXh.P.W.I/11), it is importantly noted as "according to the record, the position is as under:‑‑ CUS‑2 C/5552 Kanhiya Ram C/5553 Unknown there is no C/5552‑A or C/5554‑A C/5554 Unknown

11. Again, the same note is repeated that there is no C/5552‑A or C/5554‑A. On the same page, the Survey Inspector has given the following report:‑‑ Then, on page 47 of the trial Court file, the following observations are relevant:‑‑ "Reference report, dated 21‑11‑1973 of Malik Rashid Ahmad regarding C/5552 and C/5553. Shop No.C/5553 is situated in Mohallah Juma Shah according to Survey Enquiry Form, therefore, I suggested that the two shops situated in Gali Gosain Wali may be numbered as C/5552 and C/5552‑A and there is no need of rectifying it. (Sd.) 21‑11‑1973 D. S. C. As suggested. Act according to the Bid Sheet, i.e. 5552+A. (Sd.p21‑11‑1973."

12. In the above scenario, I feel obliged to have recourse to the principle "Verba accinienda Sunt Cum effectu ut Sortiunture effectum (Words are to be received with effect, so that they may produce effect)".

13. In the above reference from page 47, it appears that the action was taken on mere suggestion. The word "suggestion" is defined and explained in 13 the Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition as follows:‑‑ "A suggestion; presentation of an idea especially indirectly, as through association of ideas bringing before the mind for consideration, action, solution or the like. It is in the nature of hint or insinuation and lacks the element of probability. Facts which merely suggest do not raise an inference of the existence of the fact suggested and, therefore, a suggestion is much less than an inference or presumption. "

14. I also recollect that in order to personally satisfy myself about the lacunatic bid sheet. I had directed on 18‑6‑1999 that the original record of the Settlement Department should he summoned from the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner, D.I. Khan for 25‑6‑1999 ' in respect of Property Nos.C‑5551, C‑5552, C‑5552‑A, C‑5354‑A, C‑5553 and C‑4945. The said record was produced by the concerned Clerk and I had the occasion to see the bid sheet in which as criticized by the learned counsel for the petitioners and admitted by P. W .1, there was a subsequent addition "+A" with the pencil without there being any initial or signature. The bid sheet is hit by the principle "Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum ( That which is null produces no effect).

15. It is pertinent to note that a particular property whether is or is not an evacuee property can only be determined from the General Survey Card and such a General Survey Card, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, was prepared in the year 1952. This fact was also affirmed by the concerned Clerk who produced the original record before me on 18‑6 1999 that the only document from which the nature of the property (evacuee property) can be determined is the General Survey Card. Admittedly, in this case, there is no General Survey Card of the suit shop. The non‑availability of the Survey Card regarding the suit shop is clearly admitted by P.W.1. Thus, it becomes clear more particularly, with reference to Exh. P. W .1 / 11, that there was no property under the No.C/5552+A and subsequently, merely on the basis of suggestion as stated above, this number was imposed upon the shop of the petitioners by the Settlement Functionaries, meaning thereby that the respondents had totally failed to prove that the suit shop was in fact an evacuee property and it was bearing No.C/5552. This fact was thoroughly thrashed out. by the learned trial Court. However, the learned Appellate Court on the misreading of the documents erroneously concluded that the mistake was corrected in favour of the respondents. There was no basis for such a correction with the Settlement Functionaries. The learned Appellate Judge also was not justified in concluding that the defendants/petitioners failed to prove through reliable evidence that the suit property was not evacuee or that they had purchased it through auction or from the real owner thereof. This is a settled principle of law that the plaintiff shall prove his case on the strength of his own evidence and he cannot draw any benefit from any weakness of the defendant. In this case, p the burden initially lay upon the respondents to prove that it was an evacuee property carrying No.C/5552+A and was validly purchased in a transparent auction.

16. There is well‑known legal maxim "Possession Vaut titre". In most systems of jurisprudence, the fact of possession raises a prima facie title or a presumption of the right of property in the things possessed. In other words, the possession is as good as title (about). In this case, the possession of the petitioners is undoubtedly admitted by the respondents.

17. In the above legal and factual scenario, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiffs/respondents had failed to prove their case.

18. Resultantly, this revision petition is accepted and suit of the plaintiffs/respondents is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./478/P Revision accepted.