Burden of Proof

Appellant, in his defence, also opted to record his statement on oath under S.340(2), Cr.P.C., and also adduced defence evidence; however, the same fell short of displacing the prosecution's case or creating any dent in the consistent chain of events established through unimpeachable evidence

Once the prosecution successfully discharged its initial burden of proving the recovery of narcotic substance beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proof shifted to the accused under S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, to account for the possession of the contraband

In the instant case, the appellant had palpably failed to discharge such burden or to create any plausible doubt regarding his innocence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the sentence was reduced to 05 years imprisonment

With said modification in sentence, the appeal was partially accepted.

When a party seeks a decree of specific performance for the sale of immovable property based solely on an oral agreement, the onus is on that party to demonstrate that there was a mutual agreement and consensus between both parties regarding the terms of the oral contract

A person entering into an oral agreement has to prove the oral agreement according to the definition of agreement in Section 2(h) of the Contract Act, 1872

A party claiming the existence of an oral agreement must clearly specify the date, time, place, and names of witnesses in their pleadings, such as the plaint or written statement

These requirements are sine qua non to prove an oral agreement to sell.

Mere construction of a retaining wall or possession over part of a separate khasra cannot establish contiguity unless the appellant had ownership of the intervening land, which he did not

Claim of appellant being Shafi Jaar was contradicted by the physical layout of the land, as the appellant's land was at a higher elevation than the water channel making irrigation from a common source impossible

Informer was never produced before the Trial Court, which omission was neither explained nor justified

Importance of the informer's evidence could not be ignored, as it formed the basic foundation for the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat

Without evidence of informer, the appellant's version regarding the time, place and manner of acquiring knowledge of the sale remained uncorroborated

Non-production of the informer may be fatal and may result in an adverse inference being drawn against the pre-emptor

Requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat under Section 13 of the Act, therefore, remained unproved

High Court rightlyset aside the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding Talb-i-Muwathibat in its revisional jurisdiction.

Prosecution, by producing unimpeachable evidence, had to prove that the chain of safe custody was unbroken, unsuspicious, indisputable, safe and secure

Any break in the chain of custody or lapse in the control regarding possession of the samples caused doubts relating to safe custody and safe transmission of the samples and, consequently, it impaired and vitiated the conclusiveness and reliability of the chemical report of the government analyst

Therefore, it rendered the conviction to be unsustainable

If the prosecution failed in establishing safe custody or safe transmission of the alleged drug then the chemical report of the government analyst became doubtful and unreliable

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Revisional court overturned the decision of the Appellate court while observing that Talb-i-Muwathibat remained unproved

Validity

Informer was never produced before the trial court throughout the proceedings without any explanation

Omission to produce the informer through whom knowledge of the sale was acquired was a significant shortcoming in the evidentiary chain

Requirement of Section 13 of the KPK Pre-emption Act, 1987, (Act) was not merely procedural but foundational for enforceability of the right of pre-emption, which mandated that the first demand (Talb-i-Muwathibat) be made immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the sale and be proven through unimpeachable evidence

Appellant's version remained uncorroborated for the most critical point that how and when he came to know about the sale

Lapse of more than three months between the date of mutation and the claimed knowledge further undermined the promptness and credibility of the alleged Talb

Without evidence of informer, appellant's version regarding the time, place and manner of acquiring knowledge of the sale remained uncorroborated

Supporting witnesses might have been present at the time of the alleged declaration/demand, but in the absence of the informer himself, the requirement of immediacy and authenticity under Section 13 of the Act remained unproven

Non-production of the informer may be fatal and may result in an adverse inference being drawn against the pre-emptor

Appellate Court's findings on the issue of Talb-i-Muwathbat were a result of misreading of evidence, thus, were liable to be set aside

High Court, in correcting that error, acted well within its powers under its revisional jurisdiction

Revisional Court is fully empowered under Section 115, C.P.C., to do so where such findings are based on misreading, non-reading, or misinterpretation of the evidence on record

Civil Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Held: Oral gift has two parts i.e.firstly the fact of the oral gift which has to be independently established by proving through cogent and reliable evidence the three necessary ingredients of a valid gift, and secondly mutation on the basis of an oral gift has to be independently established and proved by adopting procedure provided in the Land Revenue Act, 1967, as well as the evidentiary aspects of the same in terms of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Petitioners could not lead any cogent, strong, unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence with regards to first part of alleged oral gift

Petitioners could not produce the stamp vendor, scribe, marginal witnesses, identifying witness, sub-registrar and revenue officials as well as Patwari, meaning thereby the best available evidence was withheld by the petitioners, which raised a serious adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Matters pertained to inheritable property, so the petitioners being alleged donees were under heavy burden to prove valid execution of oral gift because he could not take benefit from the shortcomings in the evidence of respondents, rather he had to stand on his own legs

Leave to appeal was refused, in circumstances.

In the disciplinary proceedings under the Industrial Relations Laws, the primary burden rests on the employer to prove the misconduct so that the matter be decided on preponderance of the evidence which is so clear, credible and gives support to the finale with little room for doubt

By and large, when any employee challenges his termination or dismissal from service, the burden often shifts upon the employer to establish that the action was based on independent, unbiased and logical reasons and while terminating the employee or dismissing the employee from service, the principle of natural justice and due process was religiously followed and the employer has to produce substantial evidence to persuade the court that the decision was not motivated by any revenge, bias and/or with any prejudiced aspiration

To prove the guilt on the charges of misconduct is a serious matter and at least for the delinquent, the stakes are much higher than the employer, therefore, before declaring guilty, due diligence should be made.

The dispute arose over a parcel of land measuring 24 kanals and 3 marlas situated in Dera Ismail Khan, where "MT", the owner, executed a mutation reflecting an exchange of land with the defendant, allegedly for better management

The plaintiff, claiming a superior right of pre-emption, instituted a suit asserting that the transaction, though recorded as an exchange, was in fact a sale

Trial Court treated the mutation as a sale and decreed that both parties, being co-owners in the same khata, were entitled to equal pre-emption rights

The appellate and revisional courts upheld this view

The legal issue requiring determination before the Supreme Court was "whether the transaction through mutation constituted a genuine exchange or a sale disguised as an exchange, thereby determining the applicability of the right of pre-emption under Section 5 of the KPK Pre-emption Act, 1987"?

Held: Courts below incorrectly surmised that the defendant failed to provide sufficient proof that the transaction was an exchange

The onus of proof primarily lay with the plaintiff (pre-emptor), who asserted that the recorded mutation represented a sale rather than an exchange

The mere failure of the defendant to establish the transaction as a legitimate and bona fide exchange did not automatically validate the conclusion that it was a sale

The absence of any credible proof indicating payment of price or a promise thereof led to the conclusion that the transaction documented in the mutation was an exchange rather than the sale claimed by the plaintiff (pre-emptor)

Courts below significantly misinterpreted the evidence presented and they also misapplied the relevant legal principles

According to Section 5 of the Act, the right of pre-emption was contingent upon the occurrence of a sale; this right did not extend to transactions such as gifts or exchanges

In the present case, the plaintiff (pre-emptor) failed to demonstrate that the transaction documented in mutation constituted a sale

Consequently, the plaintiff (pre-emptor) was not entitled to the decree he sought

Judgments and decrees issued by the courts below were legally untenable and same were set aside

Petitions were converted into appeals and petition brought forth by the plaintiff (pre-emptor) was dismissed and one brought forth by the defendant was allowed.

In the disciplinary proceedings under the Industrial Relations Laws, the primary burden rests on the employer to prove the misconduct so that the matter be decided on preponderance of the evidence which is so clear, credible and gives support to the finale with little room for doubt

By and large, when any employee challenges his termination or dismissal from service, the burden often shifts upon the employer to establish that the action was based on independent, unbiased and logical reasons and while terminating the employee or dismissing the employee from service, the principle of natural justice and due process was religiously followed and the employer has to produce substantial evidence to persuade the court that the decision was not motivated by any revenge, bias and/or with any prejudiced aspiration

To prove the guilt on the charges of misconduct is a serious matter and at least for the delinquent, the stakes are much higher than the employer, therefore, before declaring guilty, due diligence should be made.

In the present case, though Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent /registered person, but record was silent whether before issuance of Show-Cause Notice any meaningful efforts were made by the Department (sales tax officials ) to conduct an audit or any proper inquiry was made by exercising powers conferred under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, ('the Act 1990'), in order to verify the allegations

It was revealed from the contents of the Show-Cause Notice that the same had been based on vague allegations and an assumption, such as; the respondent /registered person had claimed input tax adjustment against sales tax invoices of suppliers who were subsequently blacklisted/suspended or made inactive by the Federal Board of Revenue

The court looks to what is clearly said and there is no room for any intendment nor is there any equity about a tax

There is no presumption as to tax and nothing is to be read in or implied and one can only look fairly at the language used

The scheme of the Act, 1990 clearly envisages that the obligation to establish that a person is liable to pay any tax or charge and the same has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied is essentially that of the sales tax authorities

The burden to prove the allegations is on the shoulders of the authorities/department ;and in order to discharge said obligation they have been vested with wide powers under the Act, 1990

Whoever asserts a fact is also burdened with the duty to establish that it is highly probable to be true

In some exceptional cases, the legislature, in its wisdom, has provided for what is known as reverse onus, by placing the burden on the person against whom an allegation has been made; such as S. 187 of the Customs Act, 1969 and S.14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

The concept of reverse onus i.e. placing the burden on the person against whom an allegation has been made runs contrary to the established principle of presumption of innocence

It is, therefore, for said reason that Courts lean in favour of interpreting or reading down such provision in an effort to safeguard the fundamental principles of fair trial

There is no provision pari materia with S. 187 of the Customs Act, 1969, or S.14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, in the Act, 1990

The legislature, therefore, did not intend to reverse the onus of proof in matters relating to the levy, charge and payment of the tax under the Act, 1990

The proceedings before the adjudicating authority or the statutory appellate forum under the Act, 1990 are quasi judicial in nature

When the department alleges that a registered person has committed any illegality, the former is burdened with a statutory duty to establish before the adjudicating forum, through persuasive and proper evidence, that the allegations are highly probable to be true, rather than being unreliable, false or doubtful

The duty to establish facts on the standard of balance of probabilities is on the department under the Act of 1990, thus, the question was decided against the department

Commissioner Inland Revenue (A) and the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue passed well speaking orders and had rightly set aside the order-in-original

Thus, no reason / case to interfere in the concurrent findings of the forums below was made out

Sales Tax reference Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

The party seeking damages is legally required to establish not only the incidence of the alleged harm (factum) but also the extent or value of that harm (quantum), through the production of clear, credible, and convincing evidence

Courts are not empowered to decree damages based on mere allegations; each assertion made in the plaint must be substantiated by independent and specific evidence addressing every material point.

Burden is upon the brothers who rely upon the gift deed to the detriment of the sisters to prove the validity and authenticity of the gift deed

Petitioner filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership and her Shari share in certain properties inherited from her late father

She claimed that after her father's death, his three sons and three daughters, including the petitioner, became legal heirs

Some of the legal heirs allegedly sold portions of the inherited property through disputed transactions to third parties

The Trial Court decreed the suit in her favour but in appeal the district court set aside that judgment and dismissed the suit, leading to the present revision petitions before the High Court

Held: It was clear from the perusal of alleged tamleek that it contained three thumb impressions but this document did not identify the individuals to whom such thumb impressions belonged to

Moreover, original document of tamleek was not produced before the court during evidence and nor was it mentioned in the pleadings that original tamleek was missing

Therefore, tamleek in favor of respondents/defendants was suspicious and unreliable

In the present case, the gift deed was not proved in view of the requirements of Qanun-e-Shahdat, 1984 and the respondents/defendants had not discharged the burden

Respondents/brothers were not able to establish the essential ingredients of gift/tamleek i.e. offer, acceptance and delivery of possession which was fatal to their case

Moreover, the question of limitation was raised by the respondents, therefore, the burden was upon them to prove that the suit was time-barred

However, there was no evidence on record from the side of the respondents/defendants to establish that the petitioner ever acquiesced to or waived her right in favour of her brothers or that she admitted the alleged gift in their favour to be valid

In this regard, they had failed to point out any specific occasion or event from which the limitation period for the accrual of her cause of action would commence while the petitioner/plaintiff had clearly asserted that her right has recently been denied by the respondents brothers

Impugned judgment and decree passed by appellate court was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored

Both connected appeals were allowed, in circumstances.

Burden to prove a purported gift deed brought forward by the brothers in order to deprive sisters from the share in inheritance would lie on the person who produces it.

One of possesses the document and claims entitlement on the basis of such document and benefits from it, will have to prove the said document and the burden would lie on that person.

In a criminal case, the burden of proof was on the prosecution and Art.122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty

On the contrary, it was designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which were "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience

If the Art.122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case, the burden laid on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did it or not

Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could not be used to undermine the well-established rule of law that, save in a very exceptional class of cases, the burden was on the prosecution and never shifted

Throughout the web of the law, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt subject to any statutory exception

No matter what the charge, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused was the law and no attempt to whittle it down could be entertained

In the present case, the prosecution failed miserably to prove the charge against the appellants

In a case of this nature, the co-appellant could not have been convicted for the alleged murder merely because she happened to be one of the residents of the place of occurrence

An accused person could not be convicted merely because she did not explain the circumstances in which the deceased had lost his life

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Once the prosecution discharged the burden of proving the facts in issue like, (i) death of deceased took place in the house of accused (ii) death was unnatural (iii) it was caused by certain weapon, including the relevant facts necessary to support the facts in issue, then evidential burden shifts to the accused to rebut such facts proved by the prosecution

If he raised plea that he was elsewhere at the time of murder which was a relevant fact as per Art.24 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, then he was required to prove such fact, as per illustration (b) of Art.119 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

If plea raised that act was not intentional but accidental, then under Arti.122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, accused was also obliged to prove that fact, because illustration (a) of said Article required clarification of intention of the doer

But if accused did not respond to the allegations appearing against him or offered no explanation or refused to adduce evidence rather took an evasive stance like "that he did know about it" the machinery of law incorporated in Art.129 read with illustration (h) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, became operative

Under Ss.340 & 342 of Cr.P.C., read with Art.15 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, accused was not obliged to answer that he had committed the offence for which he was being tried; thus by the application of illustration (h), presumption would run against the accused that if he had not explained the facts and circumstances in which death of deceased occurred in his/her house then, Court would be justified to draw inference that response of accused would be unfavourable to him, which in turn fortified the Court to act on the supposition that accused had committed the offence and such supposition, supported by other facts adduced by the prosecution in evidence, was legally acceptable as a form of proof per Art.2(4) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Circumstances established that the prosecution remained fully successful in proving the guilt of accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, accordingly.

Brief facts were that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession regarding suit property i.e. shop claiming it was allotted in his name during a municipal survey, while respondent No. 1 (petitioner's/ plaintiff's real brother) was allotted adjoining shop

Both the Trial court and the appellate court dismissed his suit, prompting him to institute the present civil revision

The record showed that the municipal corporation confirmed the allotment of suit property in the petitioner's/plaintiff's name, whereas the dispute between the brothers centered on who held the genuine entitlement to the suit property/shop

Core issue for determination before the High Court was as to "Whether, under S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the petitioner/plaintiff could lawfully be declared entitled to suit property/shop and recover possession when the allotment stood in his name which fact was not denied by the municipal authority, but was disputed by his brother claiming benami allotment"?

Held: It was evident from the written statement filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 that there was an admission regarding allotment in the name of petitioner/plaintiff

Allotment in the name of petitioner/plaintiff had not been denied but a specific plea was taken that petitioner was "benami" allottee and respondent/defendant in alternate spent money and got him a shop but did not bother to prove his plea taken in the written statement

Both the courts below failed to read the pleadings as well as evidence of parties and also failed to apply Art.113 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 which provided that "admitted facts need not to be proved"

It was clear from the record that the petitioner/plaintiff was the allottee of the suit property/shop

Both the courts below failed to interpret and evaluate the words "title" and "entitle" in its true perspective while judging the case between two competitors i.e. petitioner and respondent No.1

While doing so, both the courts below mis-interpreted the said expressions due to which petitioner was non-suited

Respective allotments in favour of petitioner and respondent No.1 were their entitlement and right and equated title as they could sell/transfer their allotment rights to any person by definitely informing the City District Government which was owner of the suit property

Judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were result of mis-reading and non-reading of record and were not sustainable in the eye of law and same were set aside

Suit filed by the petitioner for declaration and possession was decreed

Present civil revision petition was partially allowed, in circumstances.

Scriber of a document can only be a competent witness if he has put his signature as an attesting witness of the document and not otherwise

Name of scriber was written as scriber, who did not sign the agreement as an attesting witness rather put his signature as Wasiqa Nafees, thus, he could not be qualified as a marginal witness.

So long as the attesting witnesses are alive, capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of Court, no document can be used in evidence without the evidence of such attesting witnesses

If execution of a document is specifically denied the best course is to call the attesting witnesses to prove the execution

Non-compliance of said requirement will render the document inadmissible in evidence

Neither due process of law was adopted to procure attendance of the second marginal witness, nor any evidence was produced to establish that he was residing abroad

Petitioner while seeking performance of agreement to sell failed to comply with the stringent condition mentioned in the Art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

The brief facts were that the petitioner (purported landlord) filed a rent application under S.15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (the SRPO), claiming ownership demised premises, and alleging that respondent (purported tenant) was his tenant who defaulted in rent since 1994, seeking eviction and arrears

The respondents denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, contending that no written rent deed or proof of rent payment existed

Both the Rent Controller and Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner's claim, holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established, leading to the filing of present constitutional petition by the purported landlord

Held: It was clear from the evidence of parties that respondent (purported tenant) did not pay any rent to the petitioner (purported landlord) in respect of demised premises and petitioner remained silent for four years and did not take any effort to vacate the premises

The parties were already under litigation over title of demised premises and rent court thus could not determine the status of ownership of parties

Petitioner lodged claim of ownership of demised premises and landing the same on rent as owner

He was burdened to prove his claim through a solid and reliable evidence that he was landlord which he failed to discharge

Moreover, he claimed that demised premises was rented out on 01.09.1994, per his claim rent for one month only was paid to him but he remained silent until 27.08.1999 when the present rent application was filed

Pleadings of parties created a confusion regarding the ownership of demised premises which could not be settled by Rent Controller and fell within the jurisdiction of Civil Court

In the said circumstances, it was incumbent upon petitioner to agitate his claim of ownership before civil court but he did not

Contrary respondents filed suit seeking declaration of ownership of demised premises

Trial Court decreed the suit partly in favor of respondents and petitioner did not challenge the decree of Trial Court by way of appeal which attained finality against him

The courts below rightly resolved that title of the demised premises was under dispute and court of Rent Controller was not the forum for adjudication of such claim

It was obligatory upon the petitioner (purported landlord) to prove existence of relationship of landlord and tenant

The case of the petitioner fell outside the purview of provisions of SRPO 1979 thus rent application was not maintainable and concurrent findings of courts below were in accordance with law

Constitutional petition being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

Present appeals arose from a consolidated judgment passed by the family court, whereby suits filed by the plaintiff (wife) against the defendant (husband) for recovery of dower, maintenance allowance, and return of dowry articles were decided

Marriage was solemnized with agreed dower of Rs.5,00,000/-, and the plaintiff (wife) was ousted from the matrimonial home and divorce took place

The family court dismissed the suit for dowry articles, decreed dower partly in the form of a house valued at Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- in cash, and awarded maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month from 03.02.2022 till divorce and for the iddat period

Held: The defendant though levelled the allegation of bad character against the plaintiff but he failed to prove the same rather such conduct of defendant was a proof of the fact that his behavior was cruel towards the plaintiff/wife so if wife left the house of husband due to allegations of bad character by the husband, her desertion could not be declared as willful, thus the court below rightly declared the plaintiff entitled to get the dower as well as maintenance allowance

Since the plaintiff herself pleaded in her plaint that after marriage she was re-settled with the defendant many times and lastly she was ousted from home on 03.02.2022, hence the court below rightly declared her entitled to get the maintenance form 03.02.2022

The quantum of maintenance fixed by court below was also justified because the parties agreed that in case of desertion the defendant was bound to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month

Plaintiff/wife was also entitled to receive the dowry articles mentioned in the list or their depreciation price since the marriage remained valid for four years and plaintiff failed to mention the price of every item separately

Moreover, plea from husband that list of dowry articles was not signed by wife or her counsel had no force

Documenting of dowry articles was not necessary to be proved in strictosensu

Appeal filed by wife was accepted and those filed by husband were dismissed, in circumstances.

There is no cavil to the proposition that mens rea is the basic ingredient to impose any of the penalties prescribed under the law, while burden to prove existence of mens rea lies upon the department and to discharge such burden, the department has to bring on record that all possible measures were taken to get the law complied with by the taxpayer but he deliberately and willfully abstained himself from complying with the subject provisions of law

Record revealed that in compliance of S. 23 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 ('the Act, 2011'), department issued show-cause notice which was duly served upon appellant but neither he responded to show-cause notice nor did he appear before the Assistant Commissioner

In such circumstances, following the rule of presumption provided under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ('the Order, 1984'), the department was justified to draw an inference that appellant's appearance before the Assistant Commissioner would have caused an unfavorable result, therefore, he abstained himself from responding to show-cause notice

Therefore, appellant's absence before the Assessing Officer, despite valid service of show-cause notice, showed his deliberate and willful default to comply with the provision of law, which was sufficient enough to establish existence of mens rea in non-filing of subject returns by the appellant

In the present case, admittedly, the appellant did not carry out any taxable service, therefore; he filed "NULL" returns since the date of his registration with the department

Non-filing of return did not cause any loss to government exchequer, therefore, gravity of non-compliance of legal provision was on the lower side

Nevertheless, on account of non-compliance of S.30 of the Act 2011 by the appellant, the machinery of law came into motion, which could not be overlooked

In such circumstances, the idea of token penalty cames into operation, which in fact was a step toward reformation of the appellant in particular and society in general

Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board imposed "token penalty" upon the appellant of Rs.5,000/

Appeal stood disposed of accordingly.

Onus on beneficiary of the transaction to prove that transaction was made without any duress and with free consent of the owner

Scope

Contract procured under duress would be void

The present case was about a house that originally belonged to the respondents' family and was inherited by them through an inheritance mutation in 2001

Years later, some financial dealings between the petitioners and respondents went sour after a failed investment project

During this dispute, the respondents' predecessor was arrested and kept in police custody

While in custody, he was made to sign an agreement that transferred the family/inherited house to the petitioners, and a fresh mutation was recorded in their (petitioners') names

The respondents argued that the agreement was forced and had no legal value since it was signed under duress

The legal question before the Supreme Court was as to "whether the agreement for transfer of property, executed by the respondents' predecessor while in police custody, could be treated as a valid transaction reflecting free consent, or whether it stood vitiated by duress and coercion, rendering the subsequent mutation in favor of the petitioners void"?

Held: Since the respondents' predecessor (vendor) was arrested and was in custody, the complainant of the FIR was obviously in a position to dominate the will of accused, and therefore, the burden was upon the petitioner (vendee) to prove that he had not exerted any influence to strike a bargain/deal

The transaction so made was made on the basis of the agreement which was void

The suit of the respondents was filed within time and the petitioner was under heavy burden to prove that transaction made was without any duress and was made with free consent

No evidence was on record which could support the case of the petitioner and that was the reason the High Court dealt with the question extensively and had held rightly that the transaction made consequent to the agreement in police custody was void

No ground was present warranting interference of the Supreme Court in findings given by the High Court

Civil appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff (elderly and illiterate lady) was not required to prove the factum of fraud; rather, the burden lay upon the beneficiaries of the sale deed to establish the genuineness of the transaction

Presumption attached with registered sale deed was rebuttable

Facts in brevity were that the predecessor-in-interest (vendor) of the petitioners filed a declaratory suit challenging the validity of a registered sale deed in favour of the respondents/defendants (beneficiaries) regarding the suit property claiming that at the time of execution of the impugned sale deed, she was an illiterate woman, approximately 80 to 90 years old, issueless, and her husband had passed away

She alleged that her close relatives (respondents/defendants) committed fraud

The trial court and appellate court decreed the suit by declaring the sale deed as null and void and ordering its cancellation, however, the High Court allowed the civil revision filed by the respondents/defendants (beneficiaries), holding that the deceased vendor and petitioners had to discharge the burden to prove the factum of fraud and forgery

Core point for determination by the Supreme Court was as to "Whether the burden of proof lay solely on the plaintiff/vendor (elderly and illiterate lady) to establish fraud, or whether the beneficiaries of the impugned transaction were required to prove the genuineness and bona fides of the transaction?"

Held: Presumption of truth was attached to the registered sale deed which was a public document but the said presumption was rebuttable

As the vendors alleged fraud regarding the registered sale deed and agreement in question, therefore, it was duty of the respondents/defendants being beneficiaries to prove the genuineness of the transaction qua the suit property in their favour through bringing on record confidence aspiring and trustworthy evidence

Respondents/defendants (beneficiaries) were legally bound to prove the genuineness of the alleged transaction by producing the concerned Registrar but the needful was not done

Similarly the respondent (beneficiaries) were bound to prove the payment of sale consideration but the bank record or any official/officer of bank was not produced by respondents to prove the factum of payment of sale consideration, therefore, the respondents being beneficiaries could not discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction in their favour

The judgment of the High Court whereby, the petitioner/plaintiff (vendor) was held responsible to prove the factum of fraud was passed against the settled law of the country on the subject

Once fraud was alleged by the original owner then the beneficiaries of the sale transaction were bound to show genuineness of the alleged transaction

Impugned judgment of the High Court was set-aside, resultantly the judgments and decrees of the trial court and the district court were restored

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Subject event was an unseen occurrence in its kind and nature as during the investigation direct evidence regarding the commission of offence could not surface, therefore, the entire prosecution's case hinged upon the sole fact that the dead body of the deceased son of the complainant had been recovered from the Baitak of one of the accused, therefore, the burden of proof laid on his shoulders to prove said aspect of the case

Initial burden of proof always laid on the prosecution, which though may get shifted to accused under Art.122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat O.1984, under circumstances justifying such shifting of burden, but in the case in hand, it was noticeable that prosecution had not been able to even its initial burden of proof

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Failure of the petitioner/plaintiff to prove his right of pre-emption on the basis of ownership/title as a Shafi Sharik, Khalit or Jar

Effect

Production of site plan as proof of ownership

Validity

Pre-emptor in order to succeed has to establish such right on the day of sale, on the day of fling of suit and its continued subsistence till the date of decree

Underlying principle of law of pre-emption is that the pre-emptor has to own property before he can exercise such right

Order produced by the petitioner in evidence did not mention his name anywhere

Although in the site plan the name of the petitioner was mentioned and it described that the area shown in red belonged to the petitioner along with other shareholder, yet the said site plan was not substitute of title document

Neither any inheritance mutation was placed on record nor copy of record of rights was produced to establish that he was a co-sharer or co-owner in the suit khata from where the pre-empted property was sold

Mere admission on behalf of defence witnesses that suit property belonged to father of the petitioner and petitioner's house was situated in the suit property did not discharge the petitioner from his duty to establish independently that he was owner of the property from where pre-empted property was sold and he enjoyed the status of Shafi Sharik, Khaleet and Jar

Petitioner failed to prove his superior right of pre-emption

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

In a dispute relating to enhancement of quantum of compensation the landowners have to produce independent trustworthy and credible evidence to substantiate their claim and burden of proof in such cases is incumbent upon the landowners

With the quality and quantity of evidence presented in present case, the Referee Court had no sufficient evidentiary material on record to enhance the amount of compensation assessed by the Award as the respondents being landowners failed to prove their wishful claim through creditworthy, concrete and unimpeachable oral as well as documentary evidence

High Court reversed findings of Referee Court on relevant issues (Nos. 6 and 7 ) holding the same as against the law as well as record while deciding against the respondents and in favour of the Acquiring Agency (NHA)

Appeal ,filed by acquiring agency, was allowed accordingly.

Record /evidence revealed that by producing two attesting witnesses of (exhibited) agreement to sell along with the Bank Manager as well as two attesting witnesses of receipt of balance sale consideration, both the documents were proved by the plaintiff/petitioner in accordance with the requirements of Art.79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

After successfully proving the documents, the onus shifted on the defendants /petitioners to negate the claim of plaintiff/respondent but only one of the eight defendants appeared as (defence) witness and no one else appeared on behalf of defendants /petitioners in support of their stance

No misreading or non-reading of evidence nor any infirmity, legal or factual, had been noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the both Courts below

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Informer became acquainted with the sale transaction from one person, who was never produced in evidence in order to prove the source of information

Onus to prove the basic source of information through which the pre-emptor attained the knowledge of sale always rests upon him, however, pre-emptor had failed to establish the whole chain of information

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Suit for specific performance instituted by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial as well as appellate courts concurrently

Contention of the petitioner was that since the scribe of the document had been produced, therefore, requirement of Arts. 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat, 1984 (Order) had been fulfilled

Validity

Out of four witnesses to the document only one attesting witness was produced, who too was disbelieved by the courts below and there was no explanation for non-production of the other marginal witnesses

Mandatory requirement of Art. 79 of the Order had not been met as such document could not be proved nor could the petitioner produce admissible or credible evidence to prove the existence of any bargain of sale between the parties or about the payment for consideration, thus, the opinion of expert even if brought on record could not serve any purpose as a substitute for the mandatory requirements of law of evidence

Testimony of the scribe could not be equated with that of an attesting witness as both of them had signed the document in different capacities and with a different state of mind and such scribe did not meet the requirement of Art. 79 of the Order

Adverse presumption under Art. 129(g) of the Order against the person intending to prove the document had to be drawn against the petitioner

Petitioner could not make out any case for interference in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below and the findings of the courts below were based on correct analysis and appreciation of evidence

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution has to stand on its own legs and that burden cannot be shifted from prosecution even if accused takes up any particular plea and fails to prove it.

Filing of application for amendment in the plaint by the respondent while changing the entire description of the property in dispute

Dishonest improvements in the evidence on part of the respondent

Irregularity in the report of local commission

Concurrent decisions by trial and appellate courts

Held, that time, date and names of witnesses were mentioned in the plaint, however, exact place and time of the negotiations, which led to the conclusion of the oral agreement, were missing in the plaint

Maxim "Allegans Contraria Non Est Audiendus" (A person who alleges things contradictory to each other is not to be heard) disentitled the respondent to any relief

None of the witnesses stated that the special attorney of the respondent (her husband) was present at the time of conclusion of the oral agreement and that he took the possession

To such extent improvement was made by PW.3

In case of specific performance of the oral agreements improvements beyond pleadings are to be discarded

Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct

Two marginal witnesses of the transaction were also not independent, as PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 were husband, son and domestic servant of the respondent, respectively

Suit was time barred as oral agreement was stated to have been concluded on 02.06.2007, whereas, the suit was instituted on 18.06.2019

Civil cases are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence

Courts are obligated to overall appreciate the evidence available on record

Report of local commission and a minor weakness in the petitioner's statement had been made basis by Courts below for rendering their findings

Neither report of the local commission, which was full of irregularities, nor weaknesses of the petitioner's case could be made basis of passing a decree in the suit for specific performance of contract instituted on the basis of an oral agreement to sell, which agreement was not concluded in presence of any independent witness and the record clearly depicted glaring contradictions in statements of PWs. qua the execution of said oral agreement

Concurrent findings of the courts below were result of grave misreading and non-reading of evidence and incorrect application of settled principles of law governing grant of decree in a suit for specific performance of oral agreement

Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Oral gift has two parts i.e. firstly the fact of the oral gift which has to be independently established by proving through cogent and reliable evidence the three necessary ingredients of a valid gift and secondly mutation on the basis of an oral gift has to be independently established and proved by adopting procedure provided in the Land Revenue Act, 1967 as well as the evidentiary aspects of the same in terms of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Petitioner could not lead any cogent, strong, unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence with regards to first part of alleged oral gift

Matters pertained to inheritable property, so the petitioner being alleged done was under heavy burden to prove valid execution of oral gift because he could not take benefit of the shortcomings in the evidence of respondents, rather he had to stand on his own legs

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Production of informer in pre-emption cases is imperative for the pre-emptor to prove the fulfilment of first demand of Talb-i-Muwathibat, whose deposition being a star witness is considered to be relevant having direct bearing qua the proof of said fact

Informer is the person who sets off the events leading to the institution of a suit for pre-emption, and if he is not examined or he refuses to enter in the witness box, the inescapable conclusion would be that he is not willing and ready to support the assertions made by the plaintiffs

Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Contention of the petitioners was that since the power of attorney executed by their predecessor in favour of respondent had been revoked, therefore, disputed mutation could not have been executed by the respondent in favour of her husband

Validity

Petitioners were under legal burden to prove valid execution of revocation deed by producing confidence inspiring oral evidence, however, such course of action was not adopted, which was fatal to their stance

Under S.202 read with S.206 of the Contract Act, 1872, the principal is duty bound to give notice to the agent before cancellation of the power of attorney

Power of attorney could only be rescinded after serving a notice upon the attorney any revocation without notice to the attorney would be illegal

Disputed mutation was attested in the year 2001 and PW.2 during his cross-examination conceded that predecessor of petitioners was well aware of the disputed mutation and petitioners got knowledge of the same immediately after its execution, however, neither predecessor of petitioners nor petitioners themselves agitated the same and the suit was filed in the year 2009 i.e. after 08 years without any explanation for their inaction to do the needful, which created certain rights in favour of respondent, thus, petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the disputed mutation independently, for the reason that their predecessor himself had not challenged the same during his lifetime

Inaction on part of petitioners also invited applicability of the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence

Implied consent in accepting the mutation in question constituted abandonment of rights on account of failure to enforce it

Agent can claim ownership rights in land of the principal for himself or for his own kith and kin on the basis of agency document with the approval of principal, failing which principal is at liberty to repudiate the transaction

Such course was not adopted by the principal/predecessor of petitioners despite having knowledge of the disputed mutation, thus, the plea of the petitioner was repelled by High Court

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Argument of the Applicant / Department was that the respondent had failed to produce any goods declaration and /or import documents to prove that the vehicle-in-question was not a smuggled one

Plea of the respondent was that earlier the trawler carrying 15 vehicles, including vehicle-in-question, was completely burnt in an accident, which fact, having been endorsed by concerned Engineering Company, was thoroughly discussed by the Tribunal

Validity

Findings of the Tribunal revealed that it (Tribunal), after a detailed factual ascertainment and inquiry, had come to a definite conclusion that the vehicle-in-question was owned by the respondent as a subsequent purchaser and the reasons for re-punching of same chassis number as alleged was due to an accident, which was duly reported through an FIR

Record also reflected that Applicant through its representative confirmed the contents of the FIR and the fact that the same vehicle was involved in such accident; hence, mere re-punching of the same / identical chassis number would not ipso facto make it a smuggled Vehicle

It was further available on the record that the vehicle-in-question was initially sold by the concerned Engineering Company which at the relevant time was the manufacturer and seller of Mazda Trucks, and when approached for re-verification, it responded in favor of the Respondents, claim vide its letter - Said facts on record had not been controverted before the High Court in any manner

Thus, matter was entirely dependent upon factual aspect which had been dealt with properly by the Tribunal; hence no question of law arose out of the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal

Special Customs Reference Application filed by the Department, being misconceived was dismissed, in circumstance.

The burden of proof lies upon the party asserting a claim, and such a party must substantiate its case through credible and admissible evidence

Party cannot merely rely on highlighting deficiencies in the opponent's case, rather, it must independently establish its own claim through cogent and legally admissible evidence.

When specific plea is taken by the accused in defence, burden is upon him to establish the same.

Present second appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial court and appellate court, both of which had decreed in favour of respondent No.1 regarding possession and mesne profits of the suit property

Trial Court ordered the appellant to hand over vacant possession and pay mesne profits of Rs. 20,000 per month until delivery of possession which decision was upheld in appeal

It was the case of the appellant/defendant that respondent No.1 was neither the bona fide purchaser nor absolute owner of the suit property; that the suit property was originally purchased by the appellant's deceased father and paternal uncle (respondent No.1's father) in a benami transaction, and was held in trust by the latter for the legal heirs; that no consideration was paid for the transfer of the property to respondent No.1, which was based solely on a registered gift deed

Held: Appellant/defendant had neither sought cancellation of the gift deed nor filed suit for declaration that the subject property was owned by his deceased father

Moreover, paternal uncle of appellant who was stated to be the custodian of the suit property allegedly held in trust for the purpose of administration, did not file any application to be impleaded as party in the suit

Further, there was no evidence on record to reflect that the donor challenged the gift deed

The ingredients of a benami transaction were not even pleaded by the appellant and the courts below had correctly observed that the entire defense of the appellant was based on his oral and unsubstantiated assertions

Burden of proving the benami transaction was correctly placed on the appellant and same was in accordance with Art. 117 & 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

No infirmity was found warranting interference by the High Court in concurrent findings of courts below as jurisdiction under S.100 C.P.C. was restricted as there was no misreading or non-reading of evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence on record.

Failure of the attesting witnesses to identify the Pardanashin/ illiterate ladies at the time of execution of the agreement

Absence of the attesting witnesses at the time of signing and thumb impressing the agreement to sell

Effect

Suit instituted by the appellant was partially decreed against the respondent excluding the Pardanashin/ illiterate ladies

Appellant preferred an appeal, in which partial decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed as a whole

Validity

In case of illiterate and Pardanashin women the burden of proof rested heavily on the appellant, who sought to benefit from the transaction involving those women, however, the appellant failed to meet this burden, as the evidence presented lacked corroboration regarding the identification of the illiterate/Pardahnashin women

Additionally, the document, purportedly signed by male (respondent) and the thumb impressions affixed by the illiterate/Pardahnashin women, were not put in the sight of the witnesses as required

Witnesses failed to state such material facts during their evidence and the absence of independent legal advice further undermined the appellant's claim

Appellate Court rightly concluded that the appellant failed to prove its case, thus, the impugned judgment required no interference

Second appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Burden is on the claimant to establish affirmatively that the woman substantially understood the document and that the execution of the document was indeed her free and intelligent act

If the woman is illiterate, it is required that the contents of the document be read over to her.

Argument of the Department was that, during scrutiny, it found Registered Person (Electricity Supply Company / DISCO) to have claimed / adjusted inadmissible input tax during four tax periods on purchase of certain items (office equipment, mineral water, travel sets, soaps and sugar)

Registered person filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue as the Commissioner maintained Order-in-Original for recovery of amount along with default and penalty

Validity

Inland Officer failed to establish as to how the items purchased by the appellant fell within the categories of goods permanently attached to immovable property, or building material, or goods for personal use etc., or any of the specific category listed in Cls. (a), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of S. 8(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990

Initial burden to prove chargeability was on the Department, which did not appear to have been discharged in the present case

While examining details of goods and services provided by the appellant along with the details of utilization in the taxable activities which was placed on the record, Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Land that the same did not come within the ambit of said provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and the Officer Inland Revenue failed to substantiate and correlate the disallowance of input tax with the said provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990

Provisions of S.8(1)(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, authorize deduction for all such input tax that relates to goods that contribute directly or indirectly, and even remotely, in furtherance of taxable activity

Thus, assessment order as well as appellate order in respect of adjustment of input tax were passed on the basis of wrong assumption and application of law and incorrect appreciation of facts

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue set-aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal filed by the registered person.

Thus, once this fact of the accused's possession of explosive substance is proved by the prosecution, the onus would shift upon the accused to prove that the possession of explosive substance was for lawful justification or for lawful purpose

And in absence of any evidence produced by the accused in justification thereof, it would prove the contrary; an intention aligned with the requirement of purpose of "terrorism", as stipulated in Section 6(1)(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

As per Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, the burden of proof lies on that person

Said Article is based on the rule, ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat, which means that the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it because a negative is usually incapable of proof

Burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts and until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case

Court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden

However, the above rule is subject to the general principle that things admitted need not be proved.

In civil proceedings, an issue is to be decided by preponderance of evidence and in the case where there is a word against a word; it is the party (beneficiary) on whom the burden must fail

Question of the burden of proof becomes material only where the Court finds the evidence so evenly balanced that it can come to no definite conclusion

Where the whole of the evidence is before the Court and it has no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion , it becomes unnecessary to enter upon a discussion of the question of placing of burden on the parties.

Phrase 'burden of proof' has two meanings - one the burden of proof as a matter of law and pleading, that is 'legal burden' and the other, the burden of establishing a case, that is 'evidential burden'

Former is fixed as a question of law on the basis of the pleadings and is unchanged during the entire trial, whereas the latter is not constant but shifts as soon as a party adduces sufficient evidence to raise a presumption in his favour

Thus, the legal burden would always remain on the plaintiffs and the evidential burden would shift to the defendants if they (plaintiffs) discharged their initial burden

Evidence required to shift the evidential burden need not necessarily be direct evidence i.e. oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by the opposite party,it may comprise of circumstantial evidence or presumptions of law or fact.

Since entirety of the case of the respondents (plaintiffs) hinged on the fact that the allegedly fraudulent Power of Attorney was the root cause of the present lis, thus, the burden to prove such fraud, laid upon them

However, they failed to prove the same, rather the veracity of the Power of Attorney was not even challenged at the evidence stage

Power of Attorney was duly testified by the Consulate General of Pakistan in Malaysia and was then registered in Pakistan, therefore it qualified for the presumption of execution and authentication available as per Article 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Therefore, the Power of Attorney in favour of the appellants (defendants) enfolded a presumption of truth and genuineness and its admissibility could not be doubted as there existed no proof on record pointing towards it being forged

Appeal was allowed.

Factors and evidentiary requirements to be considered by Courts while determining whether an employee is a workman stated.

Petitioners claimed that their predecessor (defendant) had purchased land through a sale mutation attested on 13 June 1994

Respondent-lady (plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration on 6 November 2008 to challenge the said sale mutation

Petitioners' contended that the suit of respondent was hopelessly time barred, and that the respondent had simply denied her thumb impression on the said mutation and the report of the Provincial Finger Print Bureau was in itself not sufficient for disproving that the sale mutation bore her thumb impression

Validity

Burden to establish the purported sale lay upon the beneficiary of the sale (i.e. predecessor of the petitioners) but this was not discharged

Respondent was not required to disprove the sale yet she undertook to do so; she came forward and had her purported thumb impression was sent for forensic determination by the Provincial Finger Print Bureau, which submitted a comprehensive report and the witness from Finger Print Bureau was also produced as a witness

It was conclusively established that the thumb impression on the sale mutation was not hers

No evidence was produced to show that the respondent-plaintiff was aware about the sale mutation much before then

Trial Judge had correctly noted that the onus to prove it lay upon the defendant (predecessor of the petitioners)

In attending to the issue of limitation the trial Judge determined that the defendant had not been able to establish prior knowledge

Fifteen years had passed since the suit was filed by the respondent, and at three different forums she succeeded and the petitioners lost

Possession of the subject land remained with the petitioners, who had disregarded all three decisions of the courts and continues to retain the illegal possession of the land

As the petitioners had remained in illegal possession of the said land the Supreme Court imposed compensatory cost in the sum of one hundred thousand rupees

Supreme Court directed that the petitioners shall immediately hand over the subject land to the respondent, and if they failed to do so the concerned revenue officer/official shall ensure that its possession was delivered to the respondent immediately

Petition was dismissed with costs throughout.

Initial onus to prove whether the promissory note was a forged document was upon the defendant; he discharged this onus by making a statement, on oath, to the effect that he was an illiterate person and had thumb impressed several blank papers for the plaintiff

Onus then shifted to the plaintiff to prove that the transaction was bona fide and that the promissory note was legal

Plaintiff stated before the Trial Court that he accompanied the defendant and the witnesses to the Court premises, where at the instance of the defendant, a deed writer scribed the promissory note, upon which the defendant had thumb-marked, and the witnesses had signed, and then he gave Rs.800,000 to the defendant in the presence of the witnesses

However, in his cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that he had no business relationship with the defendant or family ties with him, which raised the question as to why he lent a considerable amount to a stranger

Perusal of the promissory note in question showed that the blanks of a printed form of a promissory note were filled in with black ink, names of the parties and witnesses were also written with black ink, while the ink of the thumb mark (of the defendant) was purple

It was also clear that black ink superimposed the purple ink of the thumb mark, and this depiction elucidated that the paper was first thumb-marked and then written upon

Fair and reasonable conclusion drawn from such circumstances was that the stance of the defendant that blank documents thumb-marked by him had been converted to a promissory note was correct

There was nothing on record to suggest that the defendant had, expressly or impliedly, authorized the plaintiff to use the said blank papers as a promissory note

Deed writer was one of the plaintiff's material witnesses, and he, in his statement, admitted that though he wrote the amount of Rs.800,000, but this fact was reflected in his register by pencil; he was confronted with the various entries made in his register in black ink and asked as to why he wrote the amount of Rs.800,000 with pencil and not black ink that he had used for the promissory note, and he had no plausible explanation to give in his cross-examination

Another witness of the plaintiff stated that the sum of Rs.800,000 was given to the defendant in the form of notes having denominations of 500 and 1000 in the Court premises

Again, this was an unusual act, because, normally, such dealing take place in private, where money can safely and securely be handed over and counted by the other party; this clearly cannot be done in Court premises, on the stall of a stamp vendor

Consequently payment of any amount to the defendant had not been proved

Plaintiff had failed to prove that the promissory note was not forged; therefore, he was not entitled to the decree he had sought in his plaint

Appeal was dismissed.