Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 74,76,90,92,99

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 74,76,90,92,99

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,39

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Arts. 74, 76, 90, 92 & 99---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 39---Suit for declaration and cancellation of document---Secondary evidence---Plaintiff had alleged that defendant had prepared a false, fictitious and concocted document of and that on the basis of the same the defendant was attempting to take over the possession of the property; as well as to incorporate entry in the revenue record---Plaintiff had claimed that said `will' was void, ineffective and inoperative on his rights---Trial Court decreed the suit, but Appellate Court below reversed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit---High Court accepting appeal against of Appellate Court below, recalled its order and restored the decree of the Trial Court---Validity---Defendant was given notice for production of will-deed, but due to non-availability and out of possession, he could not produce the same---Original document i.e. will-deed had not been produced without any fault or negligence of the defendant---Two attesting witnesses, who had seen said will-deed, had supported the version of the defendant that same was executed in fqvour of the defendant---Secondary evidence in the light of Arts.74 & 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was not only admissible, but also had proved the fact of its execution---Such important and legal aspect of the case could not attract the attention of High Court---Court under Art.99 of Qanu;a-e-Shahadat, 1984 would presume .that every document, called for and not produced after notice to produce, was attested, stamped and executed in the manner required by law---Execution of will had been proved, in circumstances---Another strong piece of evidence, which supported the version of the defendant was certified copy of the mutation, which had been tendered in evidence without any objection, which would be presumed to be genuine---High Court had not discussed in detail evidence of the parties, whereas it was enjoined upon the High Court to discuss the same because the divergent findings had been recorded by the courts below---Conclusion drawn by the High Court without due and proper appreciation of…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492