Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 8

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

Section: 129

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XIII,R.4,S.115

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 144

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 8---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.144---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XIII, R.4---Suit for possession of immovable property---Limitation---Oral evidence against documentary evidence---Scope---Contention of plaintiffs was that defendants had forcibly occupied the suit property---Suit was decreed concurrently---Validity---Claim of plaintiffs was based upon sale-deed execution and presentation of which for registration had not been denied by the defendants---Sale-deed being a registered document had presumption of truth---Oral evidence could not take preference over the documentary evidence---Said sale-deed had not been challenged or got set aside by the defendants from any forum---Disputed house was transferred in favour of plaintiffs in the record of Cantonment Board---Act which was performed in the ordinary course of business had presumption of correctness---Defendants had decision of Jirga in their favour but same had no weight as neither scribe nor members of said Jirga appeared before the court to prove said document---Presence of parties had not been marked in the decision of Jirga nor their signatures appeared on the same---Defendants had not produced anybody who was conversant with the hand writing or signatures of members of Jirga to prove said document---Exhibition of document was one thing and its proof was another---Exhibition of document did not mean that same stood proved rather the party relying upon such document was supposed to prove the same in accordance with law---Suit was filed after 9 years and same was not barred by time---Defendants had not raised plea of adverse possession in their written statement---Period of 12 years had been provided for such suit which would start from the date when the possession of plaintiffs had become adverse to the defendants---Both the courts below had properly and lawfully appreciated the evidence available on record---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Noor Muhammad's case 2012 SCMR 1373 and Muhammad Anwar and another's case 2007 SCMR 1510 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional…

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