Document

Rent Tribunal dismissed ejectment application for failure of landlord to prove rent deed according to the provisions of Articles 17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Lower Appellate Court allowed appeal filed by landlord and passed eviction order but High Court maintained the order of Rent Tribunal

Validity

Distinction must be drawn between invoking and applying general principles of law of evidence codified in Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and any special provisions enacted therein

While adjudicating upon civil rights and obligations in eviction proceedings, Rent Tribunal should invoke and apply only those general principles of law of evidence codified in Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that are necessary to give effect to fundamental rights of parties under Article 10A of the Constitution

Rent Tribunal need not apply all principles or any special provisions enacted in Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Such distinction is rooted in summary nature of rent proceedings, which are designed to resolve disputes expeditiously and without procedural formalities of regular civil trials

General principles of evidence, such as burden of proof, relevance of evidence, and right to cross-examine, must nevertheless apply to safeguard Constitutional right to a fair trial

Lower Appellate Court rightly accepted eviction petition filed by landlord

Rent Tribunal legally erred in law by dismissing the petition, and High Court similarly erred in restoring its decision

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court and upheld that of Lower Appellate Court, whereby respondent/tenant was evicted from the premises

Appeal was allowed.

Documents tendered through statement of counsel after completion of evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses produced, are inadmissible in evidence.

Objection raised by counsel for the appellant (insurance company) that the documents were produced by counsel of the respondent No.1 (policy holder) as such those documents could not be considered

Validity

The documents under question pertained to the record of the appellant company as well as that of respondent No.2 (bank) which had not been controverted by the appellant company through convincing evidence

Further, the other documents pertained to public record which were prepared, maintained and issued by the government and same had presumption of correctness, which official documents were per se admissible in evidence and even validity or veracity of said instruments were not under question in the present lis as such it did not have any effect on the case of the respondent No.1 (policy holder) and even the High Court had jurisdiction to take judicial notice of such public documents

Thus, the argument of counsel for the appellant being devoid of any force was repelled

No illegality or material irregularity, misreading and non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment passed by the insurance tribunal was pointed out

Appeal being devoid of any merits was dismissed, in circumstance.

Scribe of a document can only be a competent witness if he has fixed his signatures as an attesting witness of document and not otherwise

Signing of document in capacity of writer, does not fulfill and meet mandatory requirement of attestation by scribe separately

Scribe may be examined by concerned party for corroboration of evidence of marginal witness.

Production of documents in the statement of counsel is considered as an invalid mode of tendering of documents and such documents are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon as valid evidence and cannot be taken into consideration.

Respondent brought on record the documents through the statement of his counsel, which had no value in the eye of law because mere exhibition of the same was not required rather the same had to be proved and brought on record either by the parties themselves in their depositions on oath or through any of their witness while appearing in the witness box so as to have them subjected to cross-examination

Submission of such documents through statement of counsel without oath could not be appreciated and could not be considered in evidence.

Admissibility of documentary evidence necessitates the submission of primary evidence unless the exceptions outlined under Arts. 76(a) & 76(c) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, are met

Secondary evidence is admissible only in instances where the original document is demonstrably unavailable

However, in cases where the execution and subsequent loss of the original document remain unverified, secondary evidence lacks evidentiary weight.

The submission of a photocopy, without proper verification through primary or legally recognized secondary evidence, holds no probative value

Furthermore, if a document is placed on record subject to its admissibility, yet no effort is made to establish its authenticity per Arts. 75 & 76 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, such a document cannot be deemed admissible in evidence

Documentary evidence must adhere to legal standards, and unless a document's authenticity is conclusively proven, its mere presentation before the court does not suffice to establish its evidentiary worth.

When the authenticity of a document is contested and the original is not produced, a certified copy cannot be relied upon as evidence

Mere presentation of a document does not automatically confer evidentiary value unless its contents are established in accordance with the requirements for primary or secondary evidence under Arts. 75 & 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff was decreed by Trial Court in his favour but Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings and dismissed the suit

Validity

Petitioner/ plaintiff was duty bound to prove his case on the strength of his own evidence

Burden of proof, under Art. 117 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, is on person who desires Court to give decision in his favour

Petitioner/ plaintiff was to prove his case on his own legs and could not take benefit from weaknesses of defendant's side

Petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove execution of document through evidence

Mere placing of deed on record did not establish that documents had been exhibited

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Attesting to authenticity, truthfulness or genuineness of a document has to be established during the course of trial, in accordance with law.

Production of evidence which has become available through modern devices or techniques has been allowed under Art.164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

USB is a document which can be produced for inspection of Court and is documentary evidence as defined under Art.2 (1)(c) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Document produced in statement of counsel for a party relying on that document is not a permissible procedure.

Document could not be used as evidence until two attesting witnesses at least had been called for the purpose of proving its execution

Plaintiff was under legal obligation to prove the contents of documents by producing two attesting witnesses if alive but some departure was permissible if the defendants had not denied the execution

Revision was dismissed.

In the present case the relevant Jamabandi, copy of khasra gurdawari, copy of application as well as impugned gift mutation were produced in the statement of counsel for the beneficiaries/ respondents, as such the same was considered as an invalid mode of tendering documents in evidence

Documents relied upon or on the basis of which the case has been filed should be produced in the evidence by party itself giving a fair opportunity to the other party to cross-examine the same

As such the documents produced by the respondents' counsel could not be relied upon as valid evidence and such documents could not be taken into consideration

Revision petition was allowed and suit for declaration filed by the petitioner-lady was decreed.

It is for the Court to ensure that no document is included in case record as a marked document, if it does not fulfill requirements of being exhibited.

Requirement of marginal witnesses was sine qua non, not merely to identify signature of executant but to prove that the executant has put signature before witnesses

Statement of scribe did not equate the testimony of attesting witnesses.

Lower Appellate Court erred in law by holding that agreement relied upon by appellant / plaintiff was merely a sale agreement and was not a registered document and only a registered document had sanctity attached to it

Lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate that cause of action for filing suit for specific performance could arise only when party to agreement avoided or refused to perform his agreed part of contract and failed to transfer title of suit property through registered deed

Burden to prove contents of document and passing of consideration did not shift upon beneficiary in case of denial of execution of such document by executor, as such principle was applicable where there was denial or rebuttal by respondent / defendant himself and or by implication

Concurrent findings of fact could not be respected if the same were based on misreading and non-reading of evidence available on record

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two courts below and decreed the suit in favour of appellant / plaintiff

Second appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Disputed documents could not be tendered in evidence in statement of the counsel for a party, because such procedure deprived the opposing party to test the authenticity of those documents by exercising his right of cross-examination.

Plaintiff-bank filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction with consequential relief to retain the possession of immoveable/suit property allegedly leased/ allotted by the defendant (Administrator Municipal Corporation), for the construction of a sports complex

Held, that the petitioner-bank claimed title/right to certain part of subject property, whereas the (private) respondents claimed title/right to another part of the subject property

To claim their title/right the petitioner had produced/ exhibited in its evidence an Allotment Order issued by respondent (Administrator of the concerned Municipal Corporation) allotting the suit-land to the bank (petitioner); a Certificate of Possession; and an unregistered Indenture of Lease executed by the Municipal Corporation

Though said Indenture of Lease was unregistered, however, that alone was not a ground to non-suit the petitioner

Petitioner could still fall-back on said exhibited documents (Allotment Order and the Certificate of Possession) for claiming a 'right' in the suit-land

Perusal of the record revealed that there were two disputed survey numbers common to both sides and it was the area in said survey numbers which was over-lapped by the land allotted to the petitioner-bank

Certain land, out of said survey number was not disputed by the petitioner-bank and was also supported by respondent/Administrator

Therefore, without prejudice to the land in other Survey Numbers, the dispute between the parties was essentially on boundaries of their respective lands as respondents took no issue to any other land being claimed by the petitioner-bank except for certain area claimed by respondents

While evidence of the petitioner-bank had not shed any light on the boundaries/demarcation of the suit-land, the respondents had produced/exhibited documents (Certificate of Possession and letter to the petitioner of the year 1998/bank from respondent/Administrator) showing that certain area claimed by respondents was demarcated and handed over by the concerned Superintendent Survey to the respondents and was reported to a Civil Court (in a previous suit pending at relevant time) as well as to the petitioner-bank

Although the petitioner asserted unawareness regarding said documents (and especially that they had never received the said letter), nevertheless the same were produced/exhibited by the respondents and no objection was raised/rebutted to the production of the said documents by the petitioner-bank

Respondents had no evidence/conveyance to show ownership of additional area other than cumulative area mentioned in the sale deeds produced by the respondents; High Court set aside the findings in the impugned judgment that the respondents were owners of land over and above mentioned in said sale-deeds, however, the same did not turn the case in favour of the petitioner-bank

Revision was dismissed.

When a document was registered or a public functionary prepared a document, took action or passed orders in discharge of his duties performed in due course of law, it had the presumption of regularity attached with it, and that presumption needed to be rebutted with strong evidence.

Relinquishment deed was a registered document which had been acted upon and same had attained a status of a public document

Plaintiffs were supposed to prove their stance through confidence inspiring evidence which they had failed to prove

Mere denial of plaintiffs was not sufficient for setting aside of relinquishment deed, in circumstances

Relinquishment deed was thirty years old registered document and presumption of correctness and due execution was attached to the same

Plaintiffs had alleged fraud and they were bound to establish the same through convincing evidence

Evidence of plaintiffs was silent with regard to fraud

Plaintiffs had failed to prove alleged plea of fraud, in circumstances

Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs never challenged the validity of relinquishment deed during his life time

Present suit had been filed after thirty years of the registration of relinquishment deed

Principles of acquiescence, estoppel and limitation were applicable in the matter

Beneficiary of a document was to prove its validity if plaintiff had succeeded to discharge the initial burden of proof

Plaintiffs had failed to prove their stance through convincing evidence

Plaintiffs had failed to discharge initial burden of proof in accordance with law

Plaintiffs could not get any benefit from the shortcomings of defendants if any

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and those of Trial Court were restored

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Beneficiary of a document was not only bound to establish the deed by producing marginal witnesses of the same but also to prove the contents of said deed

Executant of impugned agreement to sell was not owner of suit property and transaction was shaky

Second marginal witness of agreement to sell was not produced by the plaintiffs

Plaintiffs had failed to establish agreement to sell before the Trial Court

Plaintiff had to establish his case on his own evidence and could not get benefit from the weakness of defence

No one could transfer to another a title or a right greater than what he himself possessed

None of the plaintiffs had appeared before the Trial Court to establish that they were bona fide purchasers of suit property

Non-appearance of plaintiffs before the Court was fatal to their claim of being bona fide purchasers

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff was required not only to prove the execution of sale agreement but also the existence of independent transaction of sale

One of the marginal witnesses of agreement to sell, in the present case, appeared but other was neither produced nor summoned

Execution of agreement to sell had not been proved in accordance with the mandate of Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat and same was inadmissible

Deed writer was not attesting witness and he could not make up the deficiency in evidence due to non-appearance of second witness of agreement to sell

Even deed writer did not know the parties or the witnesses and no payment was made in his presence

Where witness did not know the parties and their identification was not known to him through any independent person then his statement did not have value to prove the execution or existence of transaction

Plaintiff never attempted to summon the witness through Court nor availed the opportunity to produce him and to depose him before the Court

Nothing was on record that said witness refused to record his statement in the Court

If attesting witness of a document had died or did not recollect the execution of the same then its execution could be proved through other evidence

Plaintiff was bound to have summoned the witness and if on appearance he denied the document then course permissible in Art. 82 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could be resorted to

Plaintiff could have made a request for the expert view on comparison of signatures of the witness on the document with his specimen signatures to satisfy the Court that he had unreasonably denied the execution of document

Plaintiff without following the legal course could not be allowed to raise the plea that witness was related to the other side and he would not appear as witness if summoned

Plaintiff even did not make any effort to get the specimen thumb impression and the signatures of defendant in the Court

No request for an expert opinion was ever made nor any expert was ever summoned to prove the signatures so as to establish the execution of document

Plaintiff should have summoned the stamp vendor as defendant had denied to have ever purchased the stamp paper

No attempt was made to produce the stamp vendor and best evidence was withheld raising adverse presumption against the plaintiff

Appellate Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and declared that plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of sale transaction or execution of sale agreement

Second appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

When any condition had been attached with a promissory note then it would bring the same out of the ambit of negotiable instrument

Interest having been included in the promissory note, therefore same was not a negotiable instrument

Presumption was attached to a negotiable instrument but the same was rebuttable

Plaintiff was bound to prove the execution of document in accordance with law

Plaintiff had failed to prove the receipt of money by the defendant

No decree should have been passed in favour of plaintiff, in circumstances

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

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Written instrument in any case did not create a gift but same would be a mere piece of paper to record a past transaction

Beneficiary of gift was bound to prove the components of gift besides execution of document as well

Nothing was on record with regard to any date or month and specific name of the witnesses of transaction

Only photocopy of gift deed was brought on record and no effort was made to prove the same through secondary evidence

Defendant did not examine any of the marginal witnesses, scribe and stamp vendor of alleged deed

No attempt was made for identification of signatures of alleged deceased witness of impugned gift deed

Nothing was on record as to why evidence of stamp vendor as well as scribe was withheld in the present case

Only one of the beneficiaries was examined and the other did not appear to face the test of cross-examination

Nothing was on record to corroborate the factum that offer of gift was ever made which was accepted and possession was changed in lieu thereof

No evidence had been produced on behalf of plaintiff to prove the original transaction as well as construction of subsequent documents to acknowledge the same

If a document was tendered in evidence without objection even then it could not be treated as original having been signed and written by the persons who purported to have written or signed the same unless the writing and signatures were proved in terms of Arts. 78 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Nothing was on record as to why deceased donor deprived of the other legal heir from the suit land

Beneficiaries had failed to discharge the onus duly shifted upon them

Impugned gift transaction was forged and fictitious one which was not to be perpetuated only at the point of limitation

Interlocutory order having attained finality could not be re-agitated

Law of limitation or principle of res judicata was not applicable in the matter of inheritance

Revision was dismissed accordingly.

Proper construction of a document was a question of law and not a question of fact.

Mere registration of a document in itself was not proof of its execution by a person who was alleged to have executed the same, if execution of such a document was denied by any of the parties in the litigation.

Minor was not competent to enter into any contract and no right or liability could be attached to or arise out of a void contract

Property of a minor could be alienated through his guardian

Transaction, in question, was not executed by the minor through his guardian or next friend

Neither scribe nor marginal witnesses of exchange deed were produced nor any explanation was given for not producing the said witnesses

Only one marginal witness had been produced

Exchange deed was hit by Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Report of local commission had reflected improvements in the suit property but same was silent as to by whom it was made

Improvements, if any made by the defendants without prior consent of landlord/owner were not approved

Findings recorded by the courts below to the extent of improvements were illegal and against evidence on record and same were set aside

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiffs failed to deposit the balance sale price within specified time and application for extension of said period was allowed

Validity

Mere execution of agreement, attestation of mutation or even registration of sale deed by itself did not furnish proof of ingredients of "sale"

Beneficiary was bound to prove such document as well as transaction of sale

Allotment of property in question did not exist in favour of the vendor at the time of execution of agreement to sell

Vendor was not competent to settle sale with the plaintiff in circumstances

Mere admissibility of document as evidence was not ipso facto the proof of its execution

Due execution of document was required to be proved in consonance with the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Document could only be used as evidence if two attesting witnesses, at least, had been called for the purpose of proving its contents, execution and construction

Son of one deceased marginal witness was summoned at the request of plaintiff to testify signatures of his father but he was not examined

Non-examination of summoned witness would compel the Court to draw an adverse inference against the concerned party

Agreement to sell was not required to be notarized and Notary Public could not be equated at par with the author of document

Plaintiffs had not examined the scribe of agreement to sell whereas one of its attesting witnesses had died

Maxim: Secundum allegata et probata that a fact had to be alleged by a party before it was allowed to be proved had full command of O.VI, R.2 & O.VIII, R.2, C.P.C.; as such any evidence led by a party beyond the scope of pleadings was liable to be ignored

Other marginal witness was one of the plaintiffs and his statement being that of an interested person could not be given due weight

Decree passed by the Court was final and Court had no power to extend time to deposit the balance sale price

Impugned order for extension of time to deposit sale consideration was set aside

Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Trial Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that agreement to sell was not proved and suit was barred by time but Appellate Court decreed the same

Validity

Agreement to sell and general power-of-attorney were executed between the parties

Defendant had not challenged the said documents in favour of plaintiff and admitted their execution, validity and authenticity

Plaintiff while appearing in the witness box had also proved execution of said documents

Marginal witnesses of both the documents had died but their signatures had been identified on the said documents

Valid execution of agreement to sell and payment of sale consideration had been proved

Plaintiff had possession on the suit property and had admitted that a sum of Rs. 17,000/- was due against her

Appellate Court while discussing the claim of plaintiff had ignored the said admission and had decreed the suit without any order for payment of balance sale amount

Appellate Court had rightly observed that plaintiff had affixed her signatures on the back of agreement to sell

Unilateral agreement to sell was also enforceable if proved to be executed

Proprietary rights had been granted to the defendants during pendency of present suit

Plaintiff could come to the Court for enforcement of agreement to sell after grant of proprietary rights

Appellate Court had properly appreciated the evidence and had rightly decreed the suit of plaintiff

Impugned judgment did not suffer for mis-reading and non-reading of evidence except that no order had been passed for payment of balance amount

Suit of plaintiff was decreed conditionally on payment of balance amount to defendants within thirty days failing which the suit should stand dismissed

Revision was partly allowed in circumstances.

Plaintiff was bound to prove agreement to sell and payment of consideration amount unless same was admitted by the defendant

Agreement to sell was required to be proved by producing two attesting witnesses

When law required an act to be done in a particular manner then it had to be done in that way and not otherwise

Plaintiff by stating that other marginal witness had died could not absolve himself from his duty of proving the agreement to sell by producing secondary evidence

When marginal witness had died then mode of proving the case was to lead secondary evidence like comparison of signatures and thumb impressions with admitted thumb impressions and signatures of the dead witness on other documents

Signatures of dead witness were required to be proved through identification of his signatures by any one of his relatives

Only one marginal witness of agreement to sell had been produced but the other who was alive had been withheld

Plaintiff having withheld the best evidence, could not prove execution of agreement to sell and payment of consideration amount

Scribe of an agreement to sell of immovable property was not a substitute for an attesting witness

Evidence of scribe might have a supportive value but was neither in line with the mandate of law nor did it meet the test of Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Concurrent findings recorded by the courts below being against law, impugned judgments and decrees were set aside and suit was dismissed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

When party challenging the validity of a document was able to discharge part of his onus, only then the burden to prove the validity of document shifted upon the beneficiary.

Suit against the said defendant was to be deemed to have been instituted from the date when company was impleaded as defendant

Plaintiff had stated in the plaint that cause of action had accrued on 26-08-2011

Present suit was time barred against newly impleaded defendant private limited company

Remaining defendants were not owners of the suit property

Suit to compel the said defendants to execute sale in favour of plaintiff was not maintainable

Plaintiff was bound to prove execution of agreement to sell with the lawful owner of suit property

Alleged agreement to sell was not executed by the company or any duly authorized person by the company in accordance with law

Managing Directors of a company had to act on the basis of authorization by the Board of Directors of company or on the basis of its Articles of Association

Even plaint/suit on behalf of a company could not be filed by the Director of a company for its benefit without proper authorization

Nothing was on record with regard to any meeting of the company to propose sale of its property

Even sale consideration was not paid to the company

Immovable property owned by a private limited company could not be sold by its Director

Suit property remained to be the property of company in the record of Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan

Documents including alleged agreement to sell appeared to be forged and fabricated

Even legal heirs of Director of company could not step into the shoes of Director on his/her death to deal with the assets of a private limited company

Suit property belonged to a private limited company and possession of plaintiff on the suit property was result of fraud and mismanagement of the assets of private limited company

Plaintiff had not produced any of the marginal witnesses of agreement to sell and payment receipts

Photocopy of document was inadmissible in evidence

Business of registered company was to be transacted through Bank account held by the said company

Any transaction by or between the third party with any person who was even Director of company could not be treated as transaction binding on the company itself

Plaintiff had failed to establish contract with the lawful owner of suit property

Plaintiff had made attempt to misuse the process of court on the basis of forged documents

Court was bound to protect such immovable property owned by the company

Company had abandoned its business and its property should be dealt with in accordance with law

Suit property could only be protected or disposed of by winding-up of the company for the benefits of its affectees, if any

Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan was directed to initiate proceedings against the company and wind-up the same

Nazir of the High Court was directed to inspect the suit property and take over possession of entire suit property till final order by the Court

Member Inspection Team was directed to examine affidavit filed by the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief on oath and file a complaint against him if any case was made out

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiffs was that they were owners in possession of suit property and alleged mutation in favour of defendants was based on fraud

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Whoever desired court to give judgment as to any right or liability dependent on existence of fact must prove such facts

Plaintiff had failed to prove the alleged sale as well as execution and contents of sale deed

If a document was required by law to be attested, same should not be used as evidence until two attesting witnesses at least had been called for the purpose of proving its execution

If no such attesting witnesses were found, it must be proved that witnesses had either died or could not be found and document was executed by the person who purported to have done so

Mere production of sale deed would not absolve the plaintiffs from proving the contents of the same

Mere statement of plaintiffs with regard to death of witnesses of disputed sale deed would not absolve and exonerate them of their obligation to prove the contents of the same

Burden of proof would lie on the person claiming benefit and title from the transaction with old infirm, illiterate persons, women under influence of elders of family and parda observing ladies

Plaintiffs being beneficiaries of disputed sale had to discharge their burden but they had failed

Defendants being co-owners and co-sharers were owners in every inch of joint property till partitioned

Plaintiffs had failed to prove sale deed through cogent and tangible evidence

Long standing entries in the revenue record were in favour of defendants and plaintiffs had failed to rebut the said entries through evidence

Long standing entries in the register of record of rights would carry presumption of truth and could not be controverted by mere oral evidence unless proved otherwise by sufficient evidence

Courts below had ignored the facts and circumstances of the case reflecting from the record and evidence

Findings recorded by the courts below were illegal, result of misreading and non-reading of evidence

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

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Whenever any document/instrument was disputed/challenged, burden would lie on the beneficiary of the transaction to prove the document as well as original transaction.

Inadmissible documents cannot be taken into consideration for any purposes if those documents do not qualify the test of primary as well as secondary evidence under Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Any document that was genuine and relevant to the determination of a factual controversy may be admitted on record at any stage of the proceedings, whether original or appellate, so that justice may be done.

Beneficiary of a transaction or a document was obliged/duty bound to prove the same.

Such document can be examined and looked into by court, if it is necessary of just decision of suit.

Once any document was exhibited without objection from opposite side such document cannot be termed as inadmissible evidence.

One marginal witness appeared as witness but the other was not capable of giving evidence, as it was evident from report of Local Commissioner, not subject to challenge

Effect

Inability to produce second witness by itself was not sufficient to suggest conscience non-compliance of provisions of Art.17 read with Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

In order to treat scribe, as marginal witness, it is necessary for such witness to depose that executant signed or thumb marked the document in his presence and view while admitting its contents.

Such document cannot be seen or looked into by court, even if it is exhibited without any objection.

Document which was exhibited in evidence, must not be a proved documents and question of jurisdiction as to the admissibility of claim and nature of document was also to be seen by the court.

When basic document on which superstructure is built is void, the whole structure collapses automatically.

Unless document is tendered in evidence and exhibited, the same cannot be taken into consideration.

Scope.

Document purporting to create a right in the property must be proved to have been actually executed by a person, who allegedly executed such document; however if the executant was an illiterate person and without being aware of the contents of the document, put his/her thumb impression on it at the instance of a third party, even an admission of such thumb impression would not ipso facto raise a presumption of its being a genuine document.

Document which was not placed on record and exhibited in evidence was not part of judicial record and thus, its judicial notice could not be taken.