Thirty years old document

2025 CLC 1018 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 100Suit for declaration and injunctionThirty years old documentPresumption

Respondent / plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property on the basis of sale deeds registered more than thirty years ago

Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit and appeal in favour of respondent / plaintiff

Validity

Sale deeds over 30 years old carried presumption of correctness under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Substantial evidence was required to cast aspersion on genuineness of such sale deeds and a presumption of truth was attached to documents registered under Registration Act, 1908

Applicants / defendants were required to rebut such presumption at the trial, which they had failed to do conclusively

Both the Courts below had appropriately and lawfully evaluated the evidence available on record and correctly decreed suit of respondent / plaintiff to the extent of his entitlement of possession

Such conclusion was based on a comprehensive analysis of evidence

Legal heirs of deceased owner of suit property were bereft of any further right to claim any share in suit property

High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 CLC 1085 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Art. 100Thirty years old documentPresumptionMere thirty years old document cannot be a ground to consider it as gospel truthMere age of document is not a yardstick of its proofIt has to be established that the document was signed or written by the person whose signatures appeared on it

Such presumption is rebuttable and cannot extend to disputed document.

2023 CLC 549 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.42 & 54Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.100Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115Suit for declaration and injunctionThirty years old documentPresumptionJudgment at variance

Suit filed by petitioners / plaintiffs was based upon more than thirty years old deed of possession, original of which was not produced during trial

Lower Appellate Court reversed findings of Trial Court and dismissed the suit

Validity

Mere 30 years age of document did not provide any justification for its proof unless document was proved in accordance with Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

When document was questioned, sole ground of age of document as 30 years could not be taken as gospel truth as genuineness of document was disputed

Duty of Trial Court to determine question of its genuineness and correctness, because age of document alone did not amount to a proof but the correct contents of such document

If genuineness of document was susceptible to suspicion, Court could refuse to raise presumption and ask for proof of its contents

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court as petitioners / plaintiffs could not point out any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in findings of Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2021 CLC 1249 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art.100Thirty years old documentPresumptionPrincipleRespondent-plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit house on the basis of Nikahnama which was a thirty years' old documentTrial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of respondent-plaintiffValidityMere age of document was not considered to be gospel truth, when genuineness of the same was disputed

Trial Court was to determine question of its genuineness and correctness because age of document alone was not a proof about correctness of such document

If genuineness of a document was susceptible to suspicion the Court could refuse to raise presumption and could ask for proof of its contents

Neither the document was produced from proper custody nor witnesses appeared before Trial Court especially when respondent-plaintiff's own witness did not depose confidently in her favour

Mere age of document was not sufficient for entitling respondent-plaintiff as owner of property

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court as respondent-plaintiff failed to prove her case and restored that of Trial Court

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2020 MLD 1428 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 100Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10Suit for declaration and injunctionHigh Court appealThirty years old documentPresumptionMisjoinder of partiesPlaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property on the basis of 'Deed of Disclaimer' issued by company

Single Judge of High Court dismissed the suit on ground that original 'Deed of Disclaimer' was not produced and company or its Directors were not made party

Validity

'Deed of Disclaimer' was executed about more than 53 years back and since then none had challenged the same

Presumption of genuineness, under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was attached to a document which was more than 30 years old

When there was no adverse claim and during such a long period none of the directors or their legal heirs had ever disputed the 'Deed of Disclaimer', therefore, it could be presumed that the document was genuine

'Deed of Disclaimer' was produced in Court by proper party and one of the marginal witness supported the same

Non-existent company and its Directors could not be made party to the litigation

Party to litigation could not be defeated or failed just because of non-joinder of the parties

Company was not in existence as during its life time the company had relinquished its rights over the subject property in favour of plaintiff and the same was evident from the language of the 'Disclaimer Deed'

Intention of the Deed was to pass on the title to plaintiff and had created right of ownership regarding subject property in favour of plaintiff

When no one had challenged the right of plaintiff on suit property there remained no hurdle to declare that the title of suit property in favour of plaintiff was established

Division Bench of High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by Single Judge of High Court and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff

High Court Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2016 MLD 1139 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 100Thirty years old documentPresumptionScope

Thirty years old document had presumption of correctness and due execution would be attached to such documents.

2014 YLR 1939 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts.72 & 100Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.17Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42Suit for declarationThirty years old documentPresumptionRegistered documentProof

House in question was claimed to be owned by widow of previous owner, on the basis of dower deed executed in her favour and widow was maternal grandmother of plaintiff

Plaintiff claimed to be owner on the basis of registered gift deed executed by his grandmother

Defendants were successors-in-interest of deceased owner of the house who had denied dower and gift deeds

Trial Court dismissed suit of plaintiff but Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff

Validity

Dower deed was more than 30 years old but mere such fact alone was not sufficient to grace a document with presumption of correctness as provided in Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Age of a document alone would not amount to a proof about correct of contents of such document nor would dispense with formal proof

If genuineness of a document was susceptible to suspicion, the Court could refuse to raise presumption and could ask for the proof of its contents

Findings of Lower Appellate Court in such regard were not based on proper appraisal of law on the subject

Basic presumption of correctness was attached to registered document but when execution of the same was under fire, then beneficiary of such registered deed was legally bound not only to prove execution of the same but also contents of the same

Evidence of plaintiff was deficient on the question of offer, acceptance and delivery of possession under gift, irrespective of the fact that plaintiff had been in possession of suit house since his birth

Trial Court rightly granted decree to defendants by dismissing suit of plaintiff, whereas findings of Lower Appellate Court were against the law and could not be left to remain in field

Findings of Lower Appellate Court were result of misreading and non-reading of material evidence on the record and jurisdiction so exercised was against the law and could not be sustained

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2014 YLR 1901 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 100Thirty years old documentPresumption of truth

Thirty years old document had presumption of truth.

2013 PLD 5 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 8Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 72, 78, 79 & 100Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115Suit for recovery of possessionThirty years old documentPresumptionConcurrent findings of factPlaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit land and sought recovery of its possession

Defendants relying upon agreement to sell dated 1-6-1967 asserted that their predecessor-in-interest purchased suit land from predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs and since then they were owners in possession

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court, concurrently decreed suit and appeal in favour of plaintiffs

Plea raised by defendants was that presumption of truth was attached to agreement to sell in their possession

Validity

Presumption was attached to thirty years old document, which had come from proper custody

Court had discretion to presume that signature / thumb impression and every other part of such document, which purported to be in hand writing of any person, was in that person's handwriting and it was duly executed by the person by whom it was purported to be executed

Proof of such agreement would be sine qua non for proving ownership of defendants

Though provisions of Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, were not applicable as agreement was allegedly executed on 1-6-1967 but in view of Art. 78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, document of sale agreement allegedly said to have been signed/thumb impressed by predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs was to be proved to be their thumb impression

Plaintiffs in their statement had totally denied execution of any deed between predecessors-in-interest of parties and stated that it was fake and bogus document

Defendants were to prove that agreement in question had been thumb impressed by predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs and further that amount of sale consideration was also paid to them

Except statement of defendant, no evidence was produced to prove the unregistered agreement

Defendants were expected to produce best evidence to prove the agreement but statements made by defence witnesses in their cross-examination falsified contents of alleged agreement

Concurrent findings of both the courts below in respect of factual controversy required no interference by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction

Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.