Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 79---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 129 (g), 74, 75, 76 & 118---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction--- Field Book--- Secondary evidence--- Scope--- Darya Khurdi---Ingredients---Contention of defendants was that land in question was owned by the Forest Department---Suit was decreed concurrently---Validity---Field Book was not a 'title document' but it was a simple entry which was maintained/kept by the Tapedar while visiting the site---Field Book would not create any right of ownership unless incorporated into 'Jamabandi' (Haqan-jo-register) but the same would show only possession at a relevant date and time---Field Book record and Dhall receipts were the documents which would carry the signature of the Tapedar alone without any attestation or confirmation by other revenue officer(s)---Field Book entries produced by the plaintiffs were with regard to two months i.e. November, 1881 and December, 1881---Plaintiffs had failed to produce subsequent entries to establish continuity of possession---Plaintiffs had not produced a single document to show that entries of such Field Book were transcribed/entered in the record of rights---Non-production of such record should have been taken adverse to the plaintiffs---Plaintiffs had not produced the originals of such documents but had produced copies thereof---Document should be proved by 'primary evidence'---Plaintiffs though had produced the certified copy of such documents but not through the official (s) concerned who were the custodian of the record---No reason had been shown by the plaintiffs or justification for non production of 'primary evidence' on record as required by law---Secondary evidence without any proper explanation for non-production of primary evidence was not worth consideration---Owner of the lost land to the river would remain the owner upon the reformation of such land if it could be identified and act of nature or other acts upon which the owner had no control would not prejudice the right of owner if lost property was later reformed and identified---One would have to establish his…