Proof of document

2025 CLC 1982 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12 & 42Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 19, 79 & 80Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and declarationAttesting witness not foundProof of documentProcedureConcurrent findings of facts by two Courts below

Petitioners / plaintiffs claimed that they were owners in possession of suit property on the basis of agreement to sell executed in year 1943 in favour of their predecessor-in-interest by predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants

Suit and appeal were concurrently dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court

Validity

When no attesting witness is found, it is obligatory under Art. 80 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, upon party to prove factum of death of its witnesses that they have died or cannot be traced out

Findings of both the Courts below on question of facts and law were based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced in suit

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere or substitute findings of two Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2017 YLRN 290 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 12Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 11 & 29Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17, 79 & 129(e)Suit for specific performanceBetrothal agreementTerms and conditions of agreement being vagueEffectValid marriageIngredientsScopeProof of documentProcedurePresumption of official actsBenami transactionGiftProof ofContention of plaintiff was that he was owner in possession of suit property and defendant was benami ownerSuit was decreed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court dismissed the sameValidityPlaintiff had not signed the alleged agreement and his name did not appear as its executantImpugned agreement was vague and uncertain in its terms and conditionsMemorandum of understanding was not a valid contract unless a final contract was concluded between the partiesAlleged agreement was also silent with regard to proposal and acceptance and considerationImpugned agreement was void and not enforceableOne of two marginal witnesses did not appear in the witness-box to prove the execution of alleged agreementSolitary statement of a single marginal witness was not sufficient to prove valid execution of an agreementBoth the marginal witnesses had to be produced in the evidence to prove the sameScribe could not be a substitute of a marginal witnessExecution of agreement in question had not been proved in circumstances

Presumption was attached to the official acts and plaintiff had failed to rebut the said presumption by leading cogent evidence

Plaintiff had failed to establish the initial agreement of marriage between the parties

Defendant was minor at that time and agreement with a minor was void

Marriage was a civil contract and agreement to marry in future was not enforceable

Marriage could only take place by consent of the parties at the time of marriage

Plaintiff had failed to point out any consent on behalf of defendant to enter into marriage with him

Plaintiff had failed to prove the ingredients of a benami transaction

Plaintiff was not in possession of any title document and payment of sale consideration had not been proved

Suit property was transferred to defendant when she was minor

Parents and grandparents might transfer the property in favour of a child or grandchild without actual transferring the possession to the minor

Possession might be retained as constructive possession on behalf of the minor

Plaintiff could not prove that possession was not actually delivered by the donor to the defendant and that he was in possession of suit property since the date of Tamleek

Plaintiff had no locus standi to challenge the transfer of suit property as he had no right or interest in the same

No illegality, mis-reading or non-reading or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction had been pointed in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 PLD 130 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 59, 61, 78 & 79Expert evidenceNature and scopeProof of documentOpinion of expert-Opinion of handwriting expert when relevantProof of signatures and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document producedProof of execution of document required by law to be attested

Under scheme of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, there are many methods for proving a document, and sending the document to the handwriting expert is one of the modes for proving signatures and thumb impression of a person on a document, which is, however, not a convincing method of proof

Expert evidence is in nature of confirmatory and explanatory of direct or other circumstantial evidence and is not of much significance in presence of direct and creditworthy evidence.

2016 PLD 130 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 59, 61, 78, 79 & 129Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12Suit for specific performance of agreementExpert evidenceNature and scopeProof of documentOpinion of expert-Opinion of handwriting expert when relevantProof of signatures and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document producedProof of execution of document required by law to be attestedCourt may presume existence of certain facts

Defendant took plea that plaintiff should have asked Trial Court to send the agreement to sell and payment receipt to handwriting expert for his opinion as to thumb impression of defendant on the same

Validity-Direct evidence, in the present case was produced by plaintiffs in shape of marginal witnesses and scribe, and as such there was no need for plaintiff to move Trial Court for sending the documents to handwriting expert

Whenever evidence, which was legally required to be provided to prove execution of a document, had been produced, then the other party, denying the execution of the document, had to produce handwriting expert in proof of his denial of execution

Defendant had not moved necessary application before Trial Court for sending the document in question to handwriting expert

Failure to ask court to refer the matter to handwriting expert would raise inference against the party

High Court observed that where none of the parties to the suit moved the court for referring the document in question to handwriting expert, remand of the case to Trial Court for said purpose was not legal.

2016 PLD 130 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 78 & 79Proof of documentProof of signatures and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document producedProof of execution of document required by law to be attestedTestimony of marginal witnessesScopeArticle 78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 does not prescribe any particular mode of proof for proving a document

In case of denial of execution by executant, best course for proving his signatures would be to call the attesting witnesses in whose presence the document has been executed, provided such witnesses are alive and capable of giving evidence

Marginal witnesses are produced not merely to identify signatures of executant of a document but are examined also to prove that the executant has put his signatures within view of the attesting witnesses.

2014 MLD 1364 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XVIII, R.1Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.74, 76 & 78Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Suit for partitionProof of documentApplication of defendant to produce secondary evidence was dismissed by lower courtsValidity

Under O.XVIII, R.1, C.P.C. the party on whom onus to prove a particular issue had been placed, had the right to begin and complete evidence on such issue whereafter the other party could produce his evidence in rebuttal

Defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff's witness whose evidence had been recorded 5 years ago

Plaintiff's evidence was being recorded, defendant could produce his evidence after completion of plaintiff's evidence

Where law required an act to be done in a particular way, that act had to be done in that particular way

Witness could not be confronted with certified copies of a document without comparing such copies with the original document

Bank had no record of the documents in question

No link of the person sought to be produced as secondary evidence with the predecessor in interest of plaintiff was shown

Where scribe of a document was not available had died his signature could be proved by producing any other person who was acquainted with signature/handwriting of the deceased

Defendant could produce any person in evidence with permission of the court if name of such person had not been mentioned in the list of witnesses on his turn

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2013 MLD 1039 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Arts. 72, 78, & 79-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.2Proof of documentAuthor of the document despite being alive was not produced nor any plausible reason for his non-production was offered

Document in question was liable to be registered and for want of registration such document did not operate to create, extinguish any right

Document in original was neither tendered in evidence nor produced on record and only a photo copy was available which neither could have been tendered in evidence nor could be taken into consideration

Evidence and the contents of the plaint were irreconcilable in nature and ran contrary to each other

No misreading or non-reading of evidence having been noticed, appeal was dismissed with costs.

2013 CLC 1850 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 17 & 79Competence and number of witnessesProof of document

Documents should be reduced into writing in presence of at least two attesting witnesses.

2013 CLC 1146 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 78 & 82Agreement of partnershipProof of document

Agreement to reduce certain terms and conditions of re-construction of building, was not a "partnership deed" registered with the Registrar concerned for creation of firm to carry out business

Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provided that, if a document was alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the documents as was alleged to be in that person's hand-writing must be proved to be in his hand-writing

Article 82 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 stipulated that if the attesting witness denied or did not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence.