Presumption of correctness

Nikah-Nama' being registered document carries presumption of truth regarding its correctness.

Petitioner claimed that he and his counsel did not give any consent for disposal of the said revision application and to challenge such order filed a review application before the High Court, but the same was dismissed

Validity

No ground whatsoever for seeking review of an error apparent from record or in the impugned order passed by the Single Judge of Sindh High Court in the revision application had been agitated rather, there was a serious allegation that consent of the parties had been wrongly recorded by the Judge of High Court, thus disputing the judicial order and the proceedings however, without any evidence, material or formal affidavit of the petitioner or of the counsel who was present in Court along with counsel for respondent

It is settled legal position that presumption of correctness and sanctity is attached to all judicial proceedings, orders, decisions and the judgments passed by the Courts, whereas, the same can be assailed by an aggrieved party by filing appeal, revision as may be provided in accordance with law

However, in exceptional cases, any order or judgment passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction, or any proceedings can be subjected to review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 C.P.C. and Section 114 read with Section 151 C.P.C. by showing some error on the face of the record and the impugned order/decision sought to be reviewed, which otherwise could be rectified without reappraisal of the evidence or re-examination of the merits of the case

Whereas, in the instant case no error of such nature had been pointed out except an allegation to the effect that the counsel representing the petitioner did not give any consent for disposal of the revision application, however, such allegation was not duly supported by affidavit to this effect by the counsel, therefore, could not be a ground or basis for seeking review of the consent order

Single Judge of High Court had rightly dismissed the review application vide impugned order

Civil petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Registered sale deed carries a presumption of correctness unless stronger evidence is brought forward to challenge its authenticity

Registered sale deed in favour of the appellant stood valid unless rebutted by strong evidence, which the respondents had failed to produce

Respondents did not bring on record any document, order, or cancellation notice that could cast aspersion on the genuineness of the registered sale deed

Registered instruments, including the mutation entry and Rule Cards in favour of the appellant were not only binding upon the parties to the instruments but were equally applicable to third parties, including the respondents

Respondents had not contested the validity of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the appellant before any competent court of law

Respondents did not offer compelling evidence to dispute the registered sale deed, which was assumed to be valid under Ss. 35, 47 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 and such legal oversight by both the trial and appellate courts resulted in an erroneous dismissal of the case, as they did not properly consider this fundamental principle

Trial Court failed to follow a remand order from appellate court and the appellate court ignored this procedural mistake, rendering its judgment unsustainable

Maintainability is a foundational inquiry that must precede any substantive adjudication, thus, the case warranted remand to the Trial Court for a fresh determination specifically on Issue No. 3, which pertained to the suit's maintainability ahead of other issues and for providing detail findings on each issue separately, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to judicial precedent

Second appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court, in circumstances.

Predecessor-in-interest of respondents/plaintiffs claimed to be owner of suit plot in question and had denied execution of any power-of-attorney in favour of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ defendants

Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of respondents/plaintiffs were maintained by Lower Appellate Court as well as by High Court

Plea raised by petitioners/defendants was that power-of-attorney in question was duly notarized

Validity

There was no registered power-of-attorney, therefore, presumption of correctness could not be attached in terms of section 49 of Registration Act, 1908

In absence of any registered document, whose registration was compulsory, no immovable property could be transferred on the basis of purported unregistered general power-of-attorney

Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ defendants did not produce or exhibit power-of-attorney in question, in terms of Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, as neither alleged attorney/sub-attorney nor Notary Public and attesting witnesses were produced by predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/defendants

Basic document which was alleged to be a general power-of-attorney dated 19-02-1977 was not registered and was held to be a forged document by three Courts below through concurrent findings recorded to such effect

Burden shifted upon the beneficiary of such alleged power-of-attorney, which could not be discharged by predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/defendants

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Final attestation of mutation was held in year 2001 in presence of predecessor-in-interest of respondents / plaintiffs but they did not raise any objection at the time of final attestation

Record of rights, under S. 52 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, carried presumption of truth

Strong evidence was required to rebut the allegation and there was no evidence on record that mutation entries were made in the name of petitioner / defendant with collaboration of Revenue staff

There was no evidence brought on record that mutation entries were not conducted in accordance with law

Both the Courts below erred to draw the conclusion that burden of proof was on beneficiary of mutation on whose name entries were made

Such conclusion was against the provision of S.52 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Mutation entries carried presumption of correctness and could not be lightly reversed in absence of strong evidence in rebuttal

Burden of proof was on the party claiming title and possession of property

Party who desired a judgment from Court of competent jurisdiction in his favour was to discharge the burden on truthful and consistent evidence

High Court set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below as the same were result of misreading and non-reading of evidence resultantly suit filed by respondents / plaintiff was dismissed

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Claim / stance of the claimant (buyer of vehicle) before the Consumer Court, was that an extra amount was recoverable from Automobile Manufacturing Company (company) which was illegally charged to him at the time of delivery of vehicle , which amount he paid under protest

Consumer Court allowed the complaint against which judgment debtor / company preferred appeal

Validity

Record revealed that, in support of his contention, respondent/ complainant himself appeared as a witness and reiterated the stance taken by him in his complaint and only produced the concerned Manager but no other document was produced by him to substantiate his plea that the respondent could not charge him for any excess price of the vehicle at the time of its delivery

Conversely, the appellants produced one witness, who exhibited three documents i.e. authority letter, relationship contract, delivery order and one relating to Federal Excise Duty

Said witness further stated in his statement that duly exhibited relationship contract contained the signature of respondent /complainant

Said relationship contract reflected that the price prevailing at the time of delivery would be charged

Presumption of correctness was attached to the relationship contract which was duly exhibited without any objection from other side

When a document is produced and exhibited without objection, it always carries sanctity and strong evidence is required to cast an aspersion on its genuineness

Such document is binding on the parties to the lis

Under Art. 91 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, once a document is produced as evidence and admitted in evidence without any objection, it amounts that the same has been duly proved

While there were contradictions regarding place of agreement and handing over pay-orders etc., in oral evidence but the documentary evidence prevailed over the oral evidence

Oral evidence does not exclude documentary evidence

Document can be rebutted by a document only

Oral evidence of respondent / complainant could not rebut the documentary evidence of appellants

Respondent /complainant while examining one of the witnesses of appellants put conceding questions, thus proving that agreement took place at company (appellant's) showroom

Said conceding questions and their answers clearly depicted that the signatures on the relationship agreement were that of respondent / complainant

High Court set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the Consumer Court

Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent stood dismissed

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Appellants/ plaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit land and sought cancellation of sale deeds in favour of respondents / defendants

Judge in Chambers of High Court rejected the plaint as it was barred by time

Validity

Court could not read into the plaint what was not pleaded

If cause of action date was mentioned as 16-05-2003 and no one objected to it, then Court was to accept such date

Appellants/ plaintiffs in year 2016 sought cancellation of registered sale/ conveyance deeds dated 1992, 2005 and 2007

Judge in Chambers of High Court correctly applied law of limitation and rightly concluded that suit filed by appellants/ plaintiffs was time-barred

Onus was on appellants/ plaintiffs to show a prima facie case was made out based on plaint and documents filed in support thereof

Appellants/ plaintiffs were well aware of presumption of truth associated with a sale/conveyance deed that was duly registered under Registration Act, 1908

Appellants/ plaintiffs neither produced nor relied upon any document which prima facie could be deemed or interpreted to rebut such presumption

Such aspect of the matter did not help the cause of appellants/ plaintiffs

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court, as it did not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner/plaintiff was to prove his case on the basis of his own evidence and he could not be allowed to draw any benefit from weakness or lapses of defendant's evidence

Strong presumption of correctness and authenticity was attached to entries made during the course of first ever settlement of record of rights

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts and law of two Courts below as the same were in accordance with available evidence of parties and neither suffered from any misreading or non-reading of evidence nor from any illegalities or material irregularities

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Such presumption is attached to judicial proceedings, and strong and unimpeachable evidence is required to rebut such presumption.

Strong presumption of correctness and sanctity of high order is attached to judicial proceedings and records and to outweigh the same, strong and unimpeachable evidence is required.

Registered document carries presumptions attached to it under sections 35, 47 & 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 and under Article 90 of the Qanun-e­-Shahadat Order, 1984

Court will presume correctness of the registered document in accordance with the presumptions attached unless the same are disputed or rebutted.

Presumption under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 is not a conclusive presumption rather it is rebuttable in nature and initially burden of proving that the Negotiable Instrument was executed against consideration is on the plaintiff.

In case of dispute, non-production of Revenue Officer who attested the mutation or any other witness testing the factum of transaction would certainly diminish the evidentiary value of the entries in the revenue record

Evidentiary value of entries in record of rights would depend on circumstances of each case

Party relying on admission recorded in the order of Revenue Officer about the identity of the maker or the contents of the statement attributed to him had to prove the same like any other fact in issue.

Presumption can only be raised as to regularity in the form and procedure adopted in performance of official/judicial act, but it cannot be raised about the correctness of decision taken by the Revenue Officer.

Entries in a Wajib-ul-Arz in regard to questions of custom were presumptive evidence of existence of the rules of custom or village usages embodied therein to which a presumption of correctness was attached

Onus was on the party who contended to the contrary in regard to the custom or village usage mentioned in the Wajib-ul-Arz to establish his case.

Mutation is not a title deed but it is sanctioned under S.42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 by the officer concerned, in revenue hierarchy, in discharge of his official duties

Entries of record of revenue carry presumption of truth until the contrary is proved or a new entry is incorporated in place of the existing one in accordance with law.

Where the adverse party claims its ownership on the basis of a registered document, presumption of correctness/genuineness is attached to it.

Presumption of correctness was attached to judicial proceedings, and strong and unimpeachable evidence was required to rebut such presumption.

Property in question was declared to be Evacuee Trust property and allotment made in favour of petitioners against their claim was cancelled by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board

Validity

Order passed by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board was never reversed by any competent authority

Property was declared as an evacuee trust property and such longstanding entries were also made part of quadrennial periodical record (Jamabandies)

Old entries in revenue record had acquired presumption of correctness under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Such presumption was not displaced by petitioner through any believable and trustworthy record

Allotments in question were made after target date i.e. 1-6-1964 and Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board was well within jurisdiction to take cognizance of reference made to him, who after proper adjudication rightly cancelled allotments of petitioners

High Court declined to interfere in cancellation of allotment as Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board did not commit any illegality

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiff was that she was entitled for her share in the inheritance whereas defendants contended that gift deeds of suit property had been executed in their favour

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Witnesses of impugned transaction had expired but no secondary evidence had been produced by the defendants

Neither gift deeds nor transaction incorporated in the same had been proved by the defendants

Defendants were not in exclusive possession on the suit property

Benefit of Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could only be claimed when a deed had been admitted or proved in evidence

Courts below had rightly discarded the impugned deed relied upon by the defendants

No exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Trial Court, in suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, proceeded ex-parte against defendant for his non-appearance but Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the order

Validity

Non-examination of process server who two times tried to effect service upon defendant was a factor to disbelieve service of process upon defendant

Presumption of correctness was attached to judicial proceedings but whenever those were called in question then it was sine qua non for the beneficiary to prove the same as per mandate of Art.58 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

To bring case under illustration (e) to Art. 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, solitary statement of plaintiff was insufficient

Counsel who purportedly filed power of attorney as well as written statement on behalf of defendant, could be the best evidence to shatter / belie allegations raised by defendant but the same was withheld without any justification

Opinion of expert was one of the modes of producing evidence and if the report was properly proved, the same could be used as corroborative piece of evidence

By not resorting to such exercise, plaintiff himself incurred a presumption against him

Order passed by Lower Appellate Court caused no prejudice to plaintiff, if he had a genuine case who had been given a fair chance to prove his case on merit

High Court under constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the order passed by Lower Appellate Court, as the same was neither coram non judice nor ultra vires, rather the same was made in exercise of lawful authority on the basis of available evidence

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Written statement was silent with regard to essential details qua venue, date and names of witnesses to assert as to when, where and before whom original transaction was settled leading to execution of impugned sale deed

Plaintiff while appearing in the witness box had fully endorsed his pleadings

Onus had shifted upon the beneficiary of sale deed not only to rebut the allegations raised by the adversary but to prove that actually a fair deal of sale was effected and alleged consideration had been paid and plaintiff had voluntarily appeared before Stamp Vendor, Scribe and Sub-Registrar as well

Plaintiff had admitted that his signatures/thumb impressions were procured but with clarity that same were obtained in garb of his affidavit to be submitted for his treatment and admission in the hospital

Defendant being beneficiary was bound to prove the contents of document on which the executant had admitted his signature

Mere admission of putting thumb impression or signatures by any person on some disputed instrument without proving the content thereof would not amount to proving its execution

Whenever execution or validity of a registered document had been denied then such instrument would lose its sanctity of being presumed to be correct rather veracity of registered document would depend upon quantum and quality of evidence to be produced to prove its execution

Only restricted presumption under S.60 of Registration Act, 1908 was attached that registration proceedings had regularly and honestly been carried out by the attesting officer

Said presumption attached to certificate of the document was always rebuttable

Whenever execution of an instrument had been denied then presumption would be deduced to have been sufficiently rebutted and onus would lie upon the person who had alleged execution to prove that the document was executed/registered for the transaction effected between the parties

Presumption in favour of a registered instrument did not dispense with the necessity of showing that person who had admitted the execution before the attesting officer was not an imposter but the genuine one

Possession of suit property had never been handed over to the defendant

Payment of sale consideration followed by delivery of possession was mandatory for sale transaction

Mere registration of sale deed without payment of sale consideration and delivery of possession would not be operative to pass title to the vendee

Neither Lumberdar nor Councilor of concerned revenue estate was accompanying at the time of attestation of impugned sale deed rather Lumberdar of city had identified the vendor which had created doubt to the attestation of sale deed

Identifier, Stamp Vendor and Sub-Registrar were independent witnesses but they had not been produced before the trial Court

Non-production of said witnesses would constrain the Court to infer that had they been examined they would have gone hostile to the beneficiary

Court should appreciate the statement of a party as per its substance and pith

No one should be non-suited while turning out one or two sentences of his deposition

Admission which was wrong on a point of fact or was made in ignorance of a legal right could not be given binding effect

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

Second appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Plaintiffs filed suit that private partition of suit property had been effected regarding which agreement had been executed whereas defendants filed suit for joint possession

Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed whereas that of defendants was decreed

Validity

Presumption of correctness of document executed more than thirty years back was permissive and not imperative

Even a document was thirty years old and was produced from proper custody, Court was not bound to presume its genuineness

Court was to decide such presumption under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 in a judicious manner

Plaintiffs had admitted that defendant had constructed a building on the suit land in their presence

Plaintiffs were estopped by their conduct and they could not claim that the building be demolished

Plaintiffs could not claim any right on the basis of a document which had been violated on their behalf

Courts below had rightly not attached the presumption of truth to the document relied upon by the plaintiffs on the ground that same was more than thirty years old

Plaintiffs had failed to point out any mis-reading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below

Second appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Building replacement cost valuation had presumption of correctness but same was rebuttable by any other convincing and cogent evidence

Every piece of evidence should be appreciated in the light of peculiar circumstances of that case

If any estimate prepared by any person was not according to the market value then Court could ignore the same

Compensation of acquired land was to be awarded according to actual market value

Cases should be decided on the basis of evidence and not on the whims and wishes of Court

Compensation enhanced by the Court below was not according to the actual market value

Landowners were entitled to the cost at the rates which were prevalent in the market at the time of disbursement of compensation

Assessment of value of acquired houses made by the technical expert was accurate and according to the then prevailing rates of building materials

High Court observed that landowners were entitled for maximum value and Courts were to be liberal and generous while determining the compensation of acquired land

Provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while determining compensation of acquired land, should be construed liberally in favour of public and strictly against the Government

Landowners should be compensated as per rates of the period during which their houses were acquired and initial disbursement was made

In the present case, market value assessed by the contractor/expert was just, proper and appropriate and land owners were entitled to get the price of their houses accordingly

Impugned judgment and decree were modified accordingly

Appeal was allowed.

Contention of plaintiffs was that impugned mutation and subsequent transactions were based on fraud and misrepresentation

Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs survived for fifteen years after attestation of impugned mutation but he did not assail the same during his life time

If any authority was not conferred upon the agent but subsequently it was acknowledged by the principal then it carried value in the eye of law

Conduct of predecessor-in-interest was sufficient to prove that he was not claiming the ownership of suit property

Principle of estoppel was applicable in the present case

Judicial record had presumption of correctness and did not require any proof

Decision of Court of competent jurisdiction could not be equated as at par with the statement of witness

Present suit had been filed after twenty eight years and same was time barred

Any suit instituted beyond the statutory period was to be dismissed

Jurisdiction of Court would depend on law of limitation

If proceedings before the Court were beyond the scope of limitation then it could not assume jurisdiction

Plaintiffs had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Test for existence or otherwise, of a corresponding duty, either in contact (by way of implied term) or in tort, owed by a customer to check his monthly (or other periodic) Bank statements so as to notify the Bank of any items which were not authorized by him

Properly-worded clause in the finance agreement between a financial institution and customer could serve the purpose of a conclusive evidence clause and establish an estoppel in respect of a customer notwithstanding that there was no implied duty to check Bank statements by a customer.

Contention of defendants, inter alia was that the statement of accounts submitted by the plaintiff Bank contained incorrect entries

Validity

Perusal of record revealed that the statement of accounts, in the present case, was correct and that the plaintiff Bank had explained all objected entries and therefore the same did not suffer from any irregularity

Defendants were estopped from challenging the said statement of accounts after having received the same regularly from the time the account was opened by the defendants with the plaintiff Bank

Defendants had knowledge of the entries in the said statement throughout, which were never objected to by them before, therefore the defendants were estopped from now objecting to the same

Under normal banking practice, statement of accounts were mandatory for customers to receive and examine, and if there existed any discrepancy in the same, the Bank was to be informed

Under the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891 a statement of accounts had presumption of truth and under the law, said statements had to be presumed to be correct if not challenged by the customer after receiving the same regularly

Minor discrepancies in statement of accounts would not disentitle the plaintiff Bank to claim such amount

Suit was therefore, rightly decreed by Banking Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Official documents carried presumption of correctness.

Burden of proof would lie on a person who had desired any court to pass judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts

Person who had asserted facts must prove that such facts did exist

Heavy burden would lie on the plaintiffs to prove that suit land was in their ownership as they had desired the court to pass a judgment and decree in their favour declaring the suit land to be their ownership

Mere bald assertion or any omnibus statement would not prove the existence of any fact which was required to be proved through some tangible evidence

Presumption of truth and correctness was attached to record of rights

Such presumption was rebuttable but strong and cogent evidence was required for the same

No reliable evidence had been brought on record by the plaintiffs to brush aside the longstanding entries in the revenue record in the names of defendants

Impugned entries were made in the year 1985-86 but same were challenged on 17-12-2008

Plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land

Admission made against an established fact would be of no legal effect

Ownership and possession of defendants over the suit land had been proved through documentary evidence

Appellate Court had not properly appreciated the evidence in true perspective and had committed an illegality by decreeing the suit

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and suit was dismissed

Revision was accepted in circumstances.