Presumption of truth

Whether a revenue court can cancel a mutation lawfully entered in the revenue record on the basis of a registered General Power of Attorney or oral transaction, and construe such mutation as a clerical or factual mistake on the pretext of alleged fraud

Respondents, relying on Ss. 166 & 172(2)(vi) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, filed an application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) for correction of revenue record and cancellation of mutation after a lapse of more than 26 years of incorporation of said entries/ mutation, which application was allowed

Held: Application leading to the cancellation of mutation-in-question was filed after an inordinate delay of 26 years and was, therefore, hit by limitation

Said long-standing mutation was based on a registered General Power of Attorney /GPA (dated 14.07.1982) which remained unchallenged

The entries carried a presumption of truth under S.52 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and the jurisdiction to challenge such entries rested with the civil courts under S.53, not Revenue Courts

The impugned order failed to address said jurisdictional limitation and did not acknowledge the requirement of instituting a declaratory suit as reiterated in S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877

Furthermore, the petitioners substantiated that certified copies of the GPA were placed before the competent authority and that the entire claim of the respondents lacked bona fide as they remained silent for decades, which was detrimental

The mandate of S.53 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 clearly establishes that the revenue hierarchy acts in execution of civil rights determined by the Civil Court and cannot function as a parallel appellate or supervisory body

Had the mutation not been based on a legal document, a different legal scenario might have emerged, even then, establishing fraud would remain a necessary legal threshold before any corrective action

It is legally untenable that a mutation rooted in a legal document had been labeled a mistake merely to circumvent the procedural rigour of approaching a civil court

Complete absence of recourse to a civil court to challenge the legal documents, strips the revenue forum of any jurisdiction

Revenue courts exercise summary jurisdiction and lack competence to adjudicate questions of fraud, title, or complex civil rights arising out of civil litigation

From an equitable standpoint, the conduct of the respondents also triggered the doctrines of acquiescence and estoppel

The application of the respondents involved disputed questions of title and allegations of fraud, which fell outside the jurisdiction of the revenue hierarchy

Such matters must be resolved by a civil court

Furthermore, the principle of acquiescence was attracted as the respondents' silence rendered their belated challenge unsustainable

Revenue Authorities are creatures of statute and are confined strictly to the jurisdiction vested in them under the Punjab Land Revenue 1967; they are no Courts of plenary jurisdiction and cannot venture into questions that involve adjudication of civil rights, title, or allegations of fraud, which require framing of issues and recording of evidences

The respondents relied upon purposive meaning and interpretation rather than the literal interpretation of Ss.166 & 172(2)(vi) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section 166 states: "Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any decree or order made by any Revenue Officer, or errors therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by such officer"

A literal interpretation confines said provision strictly to minor, non-substantive corrections arising from inadvertent slips or computational errors

Even under a purposive construction, the legislative intent behind said section is to maintain procedural accuracy not to confer authority upon revenue officers to review or annul entries based on civil court decrees

Likewise, S.172(2)(vi), which allows "the correction of any entry in a record of right, periodical record or register of mutation," is designed for routine administrative corrections

Interpreted purposively, it does not empower revenue authorities to adjudicate complex disputes involving title, fraud, or the enforceability of decrees

Such matters lie exclusively within jurisdiction of Civil Court

Thus, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), was upheld, and as a result, the earlier order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), stood set aside ;the respondents might seek appropriate relief before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Suit instituted by the wife/respondent against the successors of her husband/petitioners was decreed, but the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed

Validity

Presumption of truth attached to the Nikahnama, being a pubic document, was rebuttable, as respondent failed to prove that her Nikahnama with predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was a genuine document

First and fourth copies of Nikahnama were never produced and admittedly the copy of Nikahnama with the respondent, containing the date of registration after the death of husband of the respondent, was brought on record, which implied that the Nikahnama brought on record by the respondent was never registered in accordance with law, hence, the presumption of truth was not attached to the same, therefore, the petitioners were not obligated to dislodge the presumption of truth attached to the Nikahnama

Obligation of a husband to pay the dower is applicable in cases where the registered Nikahnama carrying presumption of truth is brought on record, however, it was not helpful to the respondent, on account of distinguishable facts

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

According to section 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967, presumption of truth is attached to the entries made in the periodical record of rights i.e. jamabandis/khasra girdawari until contrary is proved

In the present case the jamabandis of the years 1949-50, 1953-54, 1957-58, 1969-70 and 2001-02 as well as khasra girdawari reveal that the exchange of pieces of land by the predecessor of the parties was given effect in the periodical record of rights by entering their names in the column of cultivators

After death of their predecessor, the names of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were also entered in the column of cultivators for the suit land in the jamabandis/khasra girdawari of different years which were not challenged by the predecessor of the petitioners in his lifetime as well as by the petitioners till filing of civil suit by the respondents in March 2005

Petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of truth attached with the long standing jamabandis/khasra girdawari for the suit land existing in the names of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 due to exchange transaction

On the contrary, apart from producing confidence inspiring oral evidence, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have also proved the exchange transaction through the exchange deed dated 01.10.1980 which bears thumb impressions of the predecessor of petitioners and his brother, the signatures of respondent No. 1, respondent No. 3 and thumb impression of respondent No. 2

Taking undue advantage of the existence of the name of their predecessor in the column of ownership for the suit land in the jamabandis, after his death, the petitioners managed impugned inheritance mutation dated 21.04.1991 in their names by concealing the factum of exchange of the suit land as well as long standing cultivating possession of the respondents over the suit land since the year 1945

Appellate Court and Revisional Court had rightly decreed the suit of the respondents and dismissed that of the petitioners

Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Held, that provisions of S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and O. XXXVII, R. 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, indicate that statutory presumption is attached with a negotiable instrument

Such presumption operates in favour of plaintiff unless and until leave to defend is granted

Where the Court, seized with such a suit, refuses leave to defend or where a defendant fails to fulfill a condition attached to a leave granting order or fails to apply within the prescribed time for leave to defend, then the Court shall decree the suit without any further proof of the suit on the basis of statutory presumption under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

However, where the very execution of instrument is denied and leave is granted by the Court, then the said initial presumption in favour of plaintiff would not arise

In such a case, the mode of disposal of the suit from summary would convert to ordinary regular form of suit

In such circumstances the consideration for discharging the burden of proof would be the same as in an ordinary civil suit pending before a Civil Court

In the present case, after grant of leave to defend, appellant's predecessor submitted written- statement and denied execution as well as consideration of three cheques, sued upon

Therefore, the burden of proof of the execution of cheques by appellant' predecessor as well as consideration was upon the appellant

Appellant produced the official witnesses who merely produced the record of impugned cheques and dishonor slips and he had not led any evidence to prove that indeed the impugned cheques were executed towards fulfillment of an obligation or towards consideration

Appellant's own statement, without proof of consideration independently through concrete evidence, was not sufficient to prove his claim

Since, the appellant failed to discharge burden of proof, therefore, the burden did not shift upon the shoulders of defendants/respondents to disproof in rebuttal as the same would not make any difference

Defendants in evidence denied execution of the impugned cheques as well as the consideration mentioned therein

Thus, the Trial Court had misinterpreted S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was wrong in placing the onus of proof of relevant issue on the defendants

High Court set-aside the impugned judgment being not sustainable in law; resultantly, suit instituted by the appellant was dismissed

Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of proceedings.

Held, that provisions of S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and O. XXXVII, R. 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, indicate that statutory presumption is attached with a negotiable instrument

Such presumption operates in favour of plaintiff unless and until leave to defend is granted

Where the Court, ceased with such a suit, refuses leave to defend or where a defendant fails to fulfill a condition attached to a leave granting order or fails to apply within the prescribed time for leave to defend, then the Court shall decree the suit without any further proof of the suit on the basis of statutory presumption under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

However, where the very execution of instrument is denied and leave is granted by the Court, then the said initial presumption in favour of plaintiff would not arise

In such a case, the mode of disposal of the suit from summary would convert to ordinary regular form of suit

In such circumstances the consideration for discharging the burden of proof would be the same as in an ordinary civil suit pending before a Civil Court

In the present case, after grant of leave to defend, appellant's predecessor submitted written- statement and denied execution as well as consideration of three cheques, sued upon

Therefore, the burden of proof of the execution of cheques by appellant' predecessor as well as consideration was upon the appellant

Appellant produced the official witnesses who merely produced the record of impugned cheques and dishonor slips and he had not led any evidence to prove that indeed the impugned cheques were executed towards fulfillment of an obligation or towards consideration

Appellant's own statement, without proof of consideration independently through concrete evidence, was not sufficient to prove his claim

Since, the appellant failed to discharge burden of proof, therefore, the burden did not shift upon the shoulders of defendants/respondents to disproof in rebuttal as the same would not make any difference

Defendants in evidence denied execution of the impugned cheques as well as the consideration mentioned therein

Thus, the Trial Court had misinterpreted S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was wrong in placing the onus of proof of relevant issue on the defendants

High Court set-aside the impugned judgment being not sustainable in law; resultantly, suit instituted by the appellant was dismissed

Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of proceedings.

Record revealed that a clear condition of furnishing security bond with specific reference of the date for its compliance was unambiguous and explicit therein but even then for about nine and half months the proceedings remained pending adjudication before the Trial Court and the appellant had never intended to fulfill such direction

Contention of the appellant regarding ignorance regarding conditional order could not be given preference because the presumption of truth is attached to the judicial proceedings

Plea of ignorance of law could not be construed or sustained as a bona fide excuse

Provision of the Art. 129(e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provided presumption of regularity to all acts performed in a judicial proceedings

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record revealed that a clear condition of furnishing security bond with specific reference of the date for its compliance was unambiguous and explicit therein but even then for about nine and half months the proceedings remained pending adjudication before the Trial Court and the appellant had never intended to fulfill such direction

Contention of the appellant regarding ignorance regarding conditional order could not be given preference because the presumption of truth is attached to the judicial proceedings

Plea of ignorance of law could not be construed or sustained as a bona fide excuse

Provision of the Art. 129(e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provided presumption of regularity to all acts performed in a judicial proceedings

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Thirty years old document that was presumed to be true, but merely on the basis of such presumption, Court could not decide the fate of fixing of future liability

When there were rules, court had to observe all those rules, if otherwise, the court would explain why those rules were overlooked.

Party challenging the entries in the said record had to prove that the entries were false or not according to law.

No refuge could be taken behind impugned mutations on the premise of presumption of correctness, if a party failed to prove it.

Factum of registration of a document was essentially a notice to the public regarding its existence and validity, and having been registered by the Sub-Registrar in the performance of his official act there was a presumption of truth attached thereto under the law

However the moment the said document was challenged by the alleged executant or his successor-in-interest, that presumption stood rebutted, and the beneficiary thereof had to prove not only the execution thereof, but also the original transaction embodied therein

In the present case the alleged donees (respondents) were unable to prove the factum of due execution and valid registration of the gift deed

No attesting witness of the gift deed had been examined to prove execution

Competent officer of the Sub-Registrar Office of the concerned District, where the gift deed was claimed to have been registered, would have been the competent and relevant witness to prove the factum of registration of the gift deed

Failure on the part of the alleged donees to produce the said witness would surely go against them

No independent witness was produced to prove that the purported donor had made declaration of gift of the disputed property, in his presence to the purported donees

Only evidence in such regard was the oral testimony of one of the purported donees which, in the present case, did not cross the threshold of veracity and sufficiency required in such a contested transaction

Similarly, the factum of transfer of possession was also not very clear

Khasra Gardawari produced by the alleged donees was not of the relevant period

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, impugned judgment of High Court was set aside and suit filed by petitioners was decreed.

Appellant/plaintiff was seeking to have her academic transcripts/credentials verified by the Higher Education Commission (HEC)

Higher Education Commission was reluctant due to the reason that her date of birth in her SSC being 05.11.1988 was in contradiction with the date of birth in her CNIC, passport and driving licence which was 19.12.1987

Birth certificate reflected the date of birth of the appellant as 19.12.1987, on the basis of which CNIC was issued recoding same date of birth

CNIC was the primary document on the basis of which passport/travel documents were to be issued and identity for purposes of casting vote was to be proved

Same date of birth was reflected in appellant's domicile, passport and driving licence

CNIC would be given primacy, and presumption of truth was attached to it

Mere fact that the SSC reflected different date of birth was not sufficient to rebut the said presumption of truth

Dismissing such party's suit on grounds of limitation meant that her SSC would continue to reflect one date of birth and all her other identity documents would continue to reflect another

Person could not have two dates of birth standing together

Appeal was allowed; suit of the appellant was decreed; and respondent was directed to issue a new SSC reflecting the date of birth according to CNIC.

Appellants/defendants contended that the registered documents (Power of Attorney, sale-agreement and sale-deed) executed by their predecessor (seller) were forged, fictitious and fabricated

Held, that agreement, power of attorneys and deeds etc, duly registered by Registration Authority in accordance with law became legal documents and carried presumption of truth and required strong evidence to cast suspicion on the authenticity of such documents

Onus was on the person who challenged the authenticity of the registered documents to prove his claim with strong, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence

In the present case, mere verbal assertions of the appellants were not enough to declare the registered sale-deed and power of attorney to be fake, fabricated and fictitious

Genuineness of registered documents, having presumption of correctness and validity attached with them, could not be dismissed without any reliable evidence

Appeal was dismissed.

CNIC was a testament on behalf of the State that its holder was a citizen and thus a presumption of truth is attached with the card and the particulars recorded therein.

Succession certificate was issued in favour of legal heirs of deceased, whereafter an application for impleadment of a party was moved with the contention that the minor being an adopted son had no entitlement in the legacy of deceased

Trial Court recalled succession certificate issued in favour of petitioners with the direction to the parties to approach the civil Court for redressal of their grievance

Validity

Deceased had left behind the widow and a minor son as legal heirs

Parentage of minor son was supported by the record of National Database and Registration Authority and passport issued by Ministry of Interior Government

Presumption of truth was attached to the official record unless proved otherwise

Presumption with regard to validity of public documents would carry weight unless it had been rebutted

Courts below had failed to exercise jurisdiction properly and appreciated the facts of the case in accordance with law

Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside and succession certificate was restored

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Predecessor of defendants being consanguine brother in presence of full brother would not get any share from the property of issueless brother

Share of issueless brother would be distributed among full brothers

Findings of both the Courts below were in accordance with law

Plaintiffs were entitled to the legacy of deceased

Correction of entries in the revenue papers with regard to relationship of plaintiffs with the deceased had already been made

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff was that he was owner in possession of suit property and impugned mutations in favour of defendants were result of fraud

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Alleged sale deed in favour of plaintiff did not contain specification and description of suit land

Seller of suit property was not owner of the same prior to mutation of inheritance in his favour

Presumption of truth was attached to the entries of revenue papers

Stamp vendor had neither produced his Register nor copy of its page relevant before the Trial Court

Plaintiff had withheld best evidence and adverse inference would be drawn against him

Possession of the property was sine qua non for a suit under S.53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Plaintiff had failed to substantiate his contention by producing cogent and reliable evidence

Plaintiff was not in possession of suit property and impugned mutations in favour of defendants were correct and legal

Plaintiff had failed to point out any mis-reading or non-reading of evidence or illegality or any infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiffs was that they had purchased suit property from the defendants through sale deeds whereas defendants had contended that alleged sale deeds were forged and fabricated

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Alleged sale deeds were scribed on 27-09-1962 having two marginal witnesses

One of the marginal witnesses of sale deeds had expired while other was alive but he was not examined on behalf of plaintiffs

Only one marginal witness was sufficient to prove the execution of alleged sale deeds under S.68 of Evidence Act, 1872

Inference could be drawn that had second witness of sale deeds been produced by the plaintiffs then he would not have deposed in their favour

Defendants had denied not only the execution of sale deeds but also receipt of sale consideration

Burden to prove the payment of sale consideration was on the plaintiffs but they had failed to discharge their onus

Mere producing a single witness under S.68 of Evidence Act, 1872 would not absolve the plaintiffs from proving the execution of deeds

Nothing was on record that when, where and in whose presence the sale consideration was paid to the defendants

Mere exhibition of sale deeds in absence of solid and tangible evidence was not sufficient to prove the contention of plaintiffs

Plaintiffs were bound to prove not only the contents of documents/deeds to be true but in addition to that payment of sale consideration which was lacking in the present case

Plaintiffs had failed to substantiate their claim and they were rightly non-suited

Mere thirty years age of document did not make it un-rebuttable or absolute proof

Such a document according to the facts and circumstances of the case was subject to proof

Nature and contents of alleged deeds in the present case were not sufficient to grant the prayer of the plaintiffs

Cognovit submitted on behalf of one of the defendants was not helpful for the plaintiffs as execution of sale deeds had been denied by the defendants

Even statement of said defendant could be considered as corroborative piece of evidence and not conclusive

Defendant who had admitted the claim of plaintiffs could have alienated his own share in the suit property in favour of plaintiffs

No possession of suit property as per alleged sale deeds had been delivered to the plaintiffs

Plaintiffs were in possession on the suit land being tenant

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence or illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Wife produced nikahnama and kabin-nama which showed that the husband, at the time of nikah, had committed and agreed to transfer certain share of the suit house and give gold ornaments to the wife in lieu of dower amount

Plaintiff wife had established her case through examination of marginal witnesses of nikahnama as well as kabin-nama

Held, when the husband gave immovable property as dower and it was incorporated in the nikahnama, such property became property of the wife

Entries incorporated in the nikahnama were equated to a registered deed

Strong presumption of truth was attached to entries made in the nikahnama

Wife was entitled to the award of decree, in circumstances

Constitutional petition filed against the decree passed by the courts below was dismissed.

Respondents being sisters of deceased filed application for conducting DNA test of minor son of deceased with the contention that he was adopted son and was not entitled for inheritance

Petition for conducting DNA test and objections were dismissed and succession certificate was issued in favour of petitioners

Validity

Documents produced on behalf of petitioners were official which had not been disputed by the respondents

Respondents should have sought declaration and cancellation of said documents before raising objections to the legal status of minor after death of his mother

Legitimacy of a child or his status as son of deceased could not be disproved by any oral evidence as against documentary evidence from official record which was a public document

Civil Court in presence of documentary evidence could not hold that the child was not born from the marriage of the parties

Father, in the present case, had not challenged that deceased was not mother of the minor son

Respondents had failed to challenge or rebut the evidence of official record of National Database and Registration Authority and other evidence before the Trial Court

DNA test could not be a sole proof of paternity of a child

Trial Court had rightly refused request of respondents for conducting DNA test, in circumstances

Respondents had made a frivolous challenge to the paternity of a child to deprive him from inheritances

Appeal was dismissed in, circumstances.

Registered documents had presumption of truth and genuineness was attached to such documents unless they were rebutted through strong and cogent evidence

Defendant without notice or consent had demolished the suit property to disadvantage of the plaintiffs

Defendant had admitted the ownership of plaintiffs with regard to suit land

Every citizen had right to acquire, hold and dispose of property and nobody could be deprived of his property except under the due process of law

Executive should respect ordinary legal right of a person towards protection of his property

If Government required land for a public welfare, it could do so by following the procedure on the subject in addition to pay compensation in lieu thereof

Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution could neither be treated lightly nor interpreted in a casual or cursory manner

Balance had to be kept between rights of individuals and the interests of the community

If in serving the interests of the community an individual or number of individuals had to be put to some inconvenience and loss by placing restrictions on some of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution then they should be reasonably compensated

Action of defendant, in the present case, was in violation of inalienable Fundamental Rights of the plaintiffs

Plaintiffs were entitled to re-occupy the suit property and raise construction thereon at their own cost or in the alternate defendant had to provide an alternate piece of land in the same vicinity of the same market value in lieu of demolished suit property

Defendant should allow the plaintiffs to re-occupy the suit property and construct a new building in place of demolished one in accordance with law

Suit was decreed, in circumstances.

Presumption of truth was normally attached to the statement of victims and their parents as normally nobody would own such allegation

Such presumption alone would not be sufficient for conviction unless the evidence of such set of witnesses passed the required test for judging the evidence judicially.

Presumption of correctness might be raised with regard to such document only when its contents were confidence inspiring and no circumstance appeared on the record to infer the same being maneuvered.

Wife had failed to prove regarding bringing ornaments at the time of marriage and snatching of the same, however, she deposed that the ornaments were stolen away

Wife was not entitled for recovery of stolen ornaments

Husband deposed that he had paid the dower but could not produce any evidence of payment of dower

Trial court had rightly passed the decree of dower in favour of the wife

Appeals were dismissed.

Document more than thirty years old had presumption of truth.

Plea of petitioners was that they were owners of suit land and respondents were not entitled to get compensation of said land

Referee Judge dismissed the reference petition

Validity

If after acquiring the land any dispute with regard to ownership of acquired land arose then same was to be resolved by the Referee Judge

Petitioners, in the present case, had placed on record the original sale deed relied upon by them

Alleged sale deed in favour of petitioners was thirty years old which had presumption of truth

Sale deed had been produced from its proper custody

Referee Judge had erred in law while not believing said sale deed

Even respondents had not denied the execution of said sale deed in their objections

Petitioners had failed to prove that location, nature and other factors of acquired land were same as to the sold land through the sale deed produced by them in support of their claim

Damage sustained by the landowners due to change of residence had not been considered by the Collector Land Acquisition at the time of determination of compensation

Landowners were entitled to the maximum compensation, not the market value of the land, if the land was acquired without their consent

Petitioners were entitled to receive compensation as specified along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Plea of plaintiff was that she was entitled for her share in the suit property whereas defendants contended that they had purchased suit land through registered sale deed

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Registered document did not require to be proved on the touchstone of Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Sale deed in favour of defendants was more than thirty years old which had presumption of truth

Cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence was required to challenge the validity of a registered document which was more than thirty years old

Defendants had proved the existence/ legality of alleged documents

Judgments passed by the Courts below were against the mandate of law and evidence available on record

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside and suit was dismissed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner/ex-wife contended that Appellate Court had wrongly concluded that property mentioned in column No. 16 of Nikahnama could not be treated as dower

Respondent/ex-husband contended that Appellate Court had rightly set aside the decree passed by the Family Court as said entries in Nikahnama were made afterwards in connivance with "Nikah Khawan"

Validity

Record revealed that respondent had conceded during cross-examination that he had signed Nikahnama and he had never challenged the entries therein

Documents could not tell lie

Nikahnama had established the claim of petitioner for recovery of 4-Marla land or in alternate its market price

Nikahnama being a public document did not require any formal proof

Strong presumption of truth was attached to entries made in Nikahnama

Respondent had mentioned in said Nikah Nama that landed property would be transferred in favour of bride as Haq-ul-Mehr, thus no scholarly interpretation of entries in Column No. 16 was needed

High Court set aside impugned judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners contended that counsel appointed by their father had not recorded statement on behalf of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners but by some other counsel

Validity

Power of attorney executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners reflected that the counsel so appointed had the authority to further delegate his powers to any other counsel for prosecuting the appeal on behalf of his client which left no ambiguity that counsel who gave the statement was duly appointed counsel and his statement was binding upon the petitioners

Order III, R.4, C.P.C. stipulated that pleader duly appointed by the party could delegate his powers to another pleader to act on his behalf in the court

Petitioners were thus precluded to wriggle out of statement recorded by their duly appointed counsel before the court

Presumption of truth was attached to the judicial proceedings in terms of Art. 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Party was bound by the statement of its counsel, unless there was anything contrary in the power-of-attorney placing restriction on the authority of the counsel to compromise or abandon the claim on behalf of his client

Petitioners remained quiet for a considerable period and after the death of their father moved the application under S.12(2), C.P.C. which was clearly based on ulterior motive

District Court was justified to dismiss such frivolous application in limine

Decision of application under S. 12(2) of C.P.C. in a cursory manner without framing of issues was not prohibited under the law; it was dependent upon the judicial conscious of the court to frame issues or to proceed with such an application without framing of any issue and decide the same summarily

No hard and fast rule could be made for the said purpose

No infirmity was noticed in the procedure adopted by the court below to decide the application under S.12(2), C.P.C.

High Court observed that frivolous application was moved by the petitioners to stifle the process of the court and to undermine the sanctity attached to the judicial proceedings and imposed cost of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioners

Revision was dismissed accordingly.

Contention of petitioners was that their counsel, without any authority or permission got recorded his statement for withdrawal of the suit

Validity

Counsel for the applicants was duly appointed counsel in the suit, who was vested with the authority to do any act on their behalf

Statement of counsel was recorded who appended his signature in token of correctness of the same

Said statement was binding upon the applicants in circumstances

Authority of a pleader duly appointed by a person to act on his/her behalf in a Court would be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or pleader and filed in Court or until client or the pleader died or until all proceedings in the suit ended

Party was bound by the statement of his counsel unless there was contrary in the power of attorney placing restriction on the authority of counsel to compromise or abandon the claim on behalf of his client

Suit was decided with the consent of the parties on the basis of statement of counsel for the applicants

Such a consenting order/decree was not appealable in terms of S.96, C.P.C.

Appeal against the order of withdrawal of suit was not maintainable in circumstances

Nothing was on record that statement recorded by the counsel on behalf of applicants lacked authority

Presumption of truth was attached to the judicial proceedings which could not be altered or swayed at the whims of the parties

Applicants had approached the Court with mala fide intention and their act of accusing their duly appointed counsel would give a bad taste to the legal profession

Appellate Court had rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed with costs in circumstances.

Petitioner/wife contended that Appellate Court had wrongly awarded her maintenance allowance lesser than the amount already incorporated in Column No.20 of the Nikahnama

Wife also claimed 5-marlas house as per stipulation in Column No. 17 of Nikahnama

Husband contended that Appellate Court had rightly set aside decree in favour of wife regarding the house as only civil suit could be filed regarding such stipulation in the Nikahnama

Validity

Record revealed that both the parties with their consent, even prior to the accrual of dispute regarding quantum of maintenance, had settled maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5000/- per month

Courts below had not, while fixing maintenance allowance for the wife, taken into consideration said vital condition

Husband was bound by self-imposed condition

Neither any valid reason had been pleaded nor existed to depart from such condition

Observation of the Appellate Court regarding stipulation of house in the Nikahnama, was not in consonance with law as per entries against Column No. 17 of exhibited Nikahnama, husband had agreed to give 5-marla residential house to the wife and under the law, presumption of truth was attached to the entries of Nikahnama

Wife was entitled to recover said house from the husband as dower/gift, however, admittedly, the marriage between the parties still existed whereas said stipulation of Nikahnama was to be treated as deferred dower so the wife would be entitled to recover said house on dissolution of marriage either in case of death or divorce by the respondent/husband

High Court modified the impugned decrees and judgments and wife was held entitled to recover maintenance allowance @ Rs.5,000/- per month with 10% annual increase and she would also be entitled to recover 5-marla residential house as deferred dower in case of dissolution of marriage, on death or divorce

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Fact was deposed by witness but was not challenged in cross-examination, the presumption would be that the same had been admitted by the opposite party.

Contention of father was that minor daughter was not legitimate child and she was not entitled for maintenance allowance

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Legal presumption was in favour of legitimacy of a child unless it was proved otherwise, provided the child was born during the continuance of a valid marriage notwithstanding that child was born within 180 days after first coitus between the couple

Such presumption could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances

Mere denial could not take away the status of legitimacy as 'child follows the bed'

Evidence of a woman would be sufficient to prove the parentage of a child

Defendant had failed to pay maintenance charges to the wife and the child

No misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Condition precedent for grant of benefit of presumption of truth to a document which was more than 30 years old was that there was no doubt about the valid execution of the same

Where a party to the case alleged such a document to be forged, then onus was on the other party relying on the same to prove execution of the document in accordance with law, as the presumption under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 would not apply.

Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that they were legal heirs of deceased and were entitled to legacy as per sharia law, and inheritance mutation of their predecessor-in-interest had wrongly been attested and same was ineffective upon their rights

Defendants contested the suit on the ground that suit property had been rightly devolved upon defendants

Plaintiffs produced revenue record on the basis of which, they agitated their claim

Suit was decreed but appeal against it was allowed

Validity

Old revenue record produced by plaintiffs did not support their version as the name of their predecessor in interest had not been mentioned as owner

Plaintiffs failed to produce documentary evidence in rebuttal of old entries in revenue record or through any other believable evidence in support of their stance

Plaintiff in fact claimed ownership of their predecessor on the basis of his entry as mortgagee in the revenue record which carried no weight as the mortgagee rights could only be transferred instead of ownership

Presumption of truth was attached to old entries of revenue record

Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Defendants asserted that documents produced by the plaintiffs in the case were either forged or collusively obtained by him

Validity

Documents relied by the plaintiffs were registered or certified copies issued by the concerned authorities

Presumption of truth was attached to said certified copies

Such documents could only be rebutted through strong and cogent evidence

Defendants failed to bring any such evidence on record

No reason, cause and justification were available to hold the said documents otherwise

Suit was decreed in favour of plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed suit claiming that their grandfather was owner-in-possession of suit property, after whom their father became owner of same, but predecessor defendants in collusion with revenue officials had made wrong entries in revenue record on basis of forged and fraudulent sale deed

Both Trial Court and appellate court dismissed the suit

Contentions raised by plaintiffs were that their predecessor was illiterate person and was therefore not able to sign disputed sale deed

Plaintiffs, in support of their contentions, could not produce any evidence, particularly for proof of alleged fraud and misrepresentation and had only relied on oral testimony

Defendants produced title deed regarding suit property which contained Urdu signatures of predecessor of plaintiffs

Suit property had been transferred in revenue record in name of predecessor of defendants through sale deed, and they had been in continuous possession of suit property since their name in revenue record on basis of said sale deed

Defendants also produced revenue record to prove entries in their names, which had presumption of truth

Defendants, on basis of title deed and revenue record, being owners-in-possession of suit property, burden of proof was on plaintiffs to prove their ownership by proving allegations of fraud against defendants

Presumption of truth was attached to sale deed in dispute, as same was ninety years old document

Plaintiffs were legally bound to mention fraud in very express way by giving particulars of fraud in plaint stating as to by whom and when fraud had been committed

Plaintiffs were also bound to prove fraud through believable evidence

Plaintiffs could not produce single witness to prove allegations of fraud

Sale deed in dispute was ninety years old document, but no explanation had been given as to why predecessor of plaintiffs had not challenged said document during his life time

Suit was badly time barred

No infirmity had been pointed out in impugned judgments and decrees of courts below which might warrant interference by revisional court

Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.

When circumstance of the case had mandated compliance of one provision of law then there would be no need of simultaneously invoking of the other

Consent of Advocate General was proper compliance of law for institution of present suit

Findings of Appellate Court were result of misreading and non-consideration of evidence on record

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and that of Trial Court dismissing the suit were restored

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Presumption of truth was attached to the revenue record prepared in accordance with law which could not be discarded, unless proved otherwise by convincing and cogent evidence.

Presumption of truth was attached to the judicial proceedings but when such proceedings were challenged, beneficiary was required to prove the same.

Contention of plaintiffs was that gift mutation sanctioned through consent decree was illegal, void and ineffective upon their rights

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Nothing was on record as to when, where and before whom declaration of gift was made by the donor which was accepted by the donee and possession was delivered in lieu thereof

Oral gift was permissible but same was required to be proved by production of persuasive and trustworthy evidence

Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit merely on the basis of conceding written statement as well as conceding statement of donor without taking precautionary measures whether all such proceedings were being conducted without any coercion or misrepresentation on the part of donor-lady

Consent decree being an agreement between the parties to the lis when brought under challenge was required to be proved by beneficiary through production of convincing and cogent evidence

Trial Court without issuance of summons to the rival party for any further date of hearing received written statement of defendant-donor and after recording her conceding statement suit was decreed on the same day

Identification of a lady by the advocate before the court who had not been engaged through execution of power of attorney would have no sanctity in the eye of law

No other independent advice was available to the donor who was an illiterate and old age folk lady

Gift mutation for its completion required independent witnesses and identifiers which were not available to the donee in the present case

Principles.

Landed property mentioned in the Nikah Nama was given to the wife by the husband as dower which was incorporated in relevant column of the same

Once husband had given immovable property as dower and it was incorporated in the Nikah Nama, then same would become property of wife

If during his lifetime husband was of the view that entries of Nikah Nama/Nikah Register were tampered with then he could have approached the Deputy Commissioner

Once entries were incorporated in the Nikah Nama then same were to be equated to be a registered deed

Strong presumption of truth was attached to such entries made in the Nikah Nama

Defendants had failed to rebut the presumption attached to the contents of Nikah Nama through any cogent evidence

Wife was entitled to the award of decree as passed by the courts below

No cutting, tampering or overwriting on the Nikah Nama was pointed out by the defendants

Claim of wife with regard to dower of land measuring 16 kanals was genuine

Wife had proved her claim through cogent, reliable and trustworthy oral and documentary evidence

Nothing was on record that the findings recorded by the courts below were not in conformity with the evidence brought on record

Family Court had got the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute wherein movable or immovable property had been claimed as dower

Appeal, review or revision were creation of statute and same could neither be presumed nor inferred if they were not specifically provided in the relevant statute

Defendants had preferred revision against the judgment of Appellate Court which was not competent in family cases

Revision was dismissed in limine.

Negotiable instrument had presumption of truth and any person who wished to dispel the same had to furnish proof/cogent evidence to the contrary.

Contention of defendants was that Banking Court at the time of passing an 'interim decree' was required to grant not only 'leave to defend the suit' but also to frame issues

Validity

Disputed amount of mark-up could conveniently be sorted out without framing of any issue and recording of any evidence

Liquidated damages could not be granted without proving the same through sufficient evidence

Negotiable instrument had presumption of truth and any person who wished to dispel it had to furnish proof/cogent evidence to the contrary

Defendants with their free will and wish had signed and executed documents for repayment of loan amount

Defendants were estopped from challenging the same

Doctrine of promissory estoppel was applicable in the case

No one could approbate and reprobate at the same time

Party claiming liquidated damages had firstly to plead and then to lead positive and sufficient evidence in proof thereof

Issues would arise out of the pleadings of the parties

Issues could only be framed when dispute could not be resolved without putting the parties to lead evidence in 'pro' and 'contra' of the same

Issues were not required to be framed as a routine which would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case

Application for leave to defend the suit was dismissed and suit was decreed against the defendants jointly and severally for outstanding amount plus cost of funds from the date of default till the date of realization

Final decree with regard to sale of mortgaged properties was also passed.

Nothing was on record to prove that sale deed in favour of plaintiff was either forged, fictitious or a manipulated document

Mere assertion that sale deed was forged and fictitious without proving such allegation by leading strong evidence would not per se lead to a conclusion that its veracity was doubtful

Presumption as to genuineness, correctness and authenticity of a registered document could not be dispelled by oral assertion

Plaintiff had produced registered document in proof of its title with regard to suit property

Oral assertions of defendant was not sufficient to rebut such document

Executant of power of attorney had died when same was allegedly executed and registered by the Sub-Registrar

Sale deed in favour of defendants was a forged, fabricated and bogus document which was void ab initio, invalid and of no legal effect

Said sale deed was liable to be cancelled and delivered up in the court

Sale deed in favour of defendants being forged and sham did not convey any title to the suit property

Plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that the title of suit property would vest in it

Possession of suit property should be delivered immediately to the plaintiff after getting vacated from the defendants

Defendants were in illegal possession of suit property on the basis of forged, fabricated and manipulated documents

Defendants had caused huge financial losses to the plaintiff on account of illegal possession of suit property

Plaintiff was entitled to be granted mesne profits to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally

Suit of plaintiff was decreed in circumstances with costs and registered power of attorney and registered sale deed in favour of defendants were cancelled and ordered to be delivered up in the court within specified period.

Plaintiff filed suit for possession, permanent injunction, possession and cancellation of agreement claiming ownership of suit property alleging that defendant had illegally occupied the same

Contention raised by plaintiff was that she was owner of suit property as per revenue record supported by oral evidence which remained unrebutted, and utility bills produced by defendant were not sufficient proof of ownership

Defendant took the plea that he had been in possession for twenty-eight years and paid all utility bills; that question of title had earlier been decided in complaint filed by plaintiff under Ss.3, 4 & 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005; and that mere entries in name of plaintiff were no proof of her ownership

Trial Court dismissed the suit on ground that defendant had been in possession of suit property for twenty-eight years and substantiated his possession by producing electricity bills

Validity

Trial court had given more weight to utility bills than to mutation produced by plaintiff

Defendant had failed to prove that mutation entry in name of plaintiff was collusive or result of forgery

Presumption of truth was attached to revenue entry

Mutation entry was a document bearing presumption of truth unless rebutted

Presumption of truth was attached to revenue record, which could not be controverted without sufficient and convincing evidence

Utility bills might establish possession of a person, but such documents could not establish ownership in presence of recorded owner

In presence of mutation entry in favour of plaintiff, utility bills had no substantial value with regard to ownership of suit property

Plaintiff had succeeded in substantiating her claim, which defendant could not rebut

High Court, setting aside judgment and decree of Trial Court, decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff as prayed for.

Impugned judgments and decrees were maintained.

Bare words could not dislodge the presumption of truth attached to a registered deed.

When entries of mutation were incorporated in the record of rights, the same would carry a presumption of truth.

Thirty years old document had presumption of truth.