| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 2515 2017 SLD 2515 2017 YLR 2229 |
Lahore High Court
C.R. No. 3745 of 2014, heard on 2-3-2016.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal and Anwaar Hussain Janjua for Petitioners.Muhammad Iqbal Akhtar and Ahmad Ikram for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 8.
C.R. No. 3745 of 2014, heard on 2-3-2016.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal and Anwaar Hussain Janjua for Petitioners.Muhammad Iqbal Akhtar and Ahmad Ikram for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 8.
MUHAMMAD YOUNAS AND ANOTHERVS GHAZANFAR ABBAS AND 12 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ---S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 87, 100 & 129 (g)---Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 76 & 68---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 60---Suit for declaration--- Limitation--- Inheritance---Gift deed---Proof---Procedure---Document more than 30-years old---Scope---Fraud---Effect---Contention of plaintiffs was that gift deed in favour of defendants was based on fraud---Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court but same was decreed by the Appellate Court---Validity---Mere factum that signatures of Secretary Union Council as well as Nazim appeared on the death certificate of donor was not sufficient to hold that said document was admissible in evidence until original record was presented before the Trial Court to compare with the same---Neither Secretary Union Council nor Nazim who put their signatures on the death certificate were brought to the witness-box to prove the contents of said document---Copy of death certificate was to be taken out of consideration---Production of document on record and its proof were two independent aspects---Death certificate could not be treated to be attested copy only for the reason that same was signed by the Secretary/Nazim---No appending certificate on the said document was available which could satisfy that it was a correct copy of the original---Mere fact that no objection was taken to said certificate at the time of its exhibition would not make the same admissible in evidence which otherwise could not be admitted under the law---Defendants had withheld the best evidence which was available to them in the shape of Custodian of Register of death entries and an adverse inference would be drawn against them---Copy of death entry was not copy of judicial record which could not be received in evidence without the proof of signatures and writing of the person alleged to have signed or written the same even if such documents brought on record were exhibited without objection---Whenever execution or validity of a registered document was denied then such document would lose sanctity of being presumed to be correct---Veracity of such document would depend upon quantum and quality of…