Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 584 2017 SLD 584 2017 CLC 277
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 872-P of 2010, decided on 22nd February, 2016, heard on: 22nd February, 2016.
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, CHIEF, JUSTICE
Muhammad Asif for Petitioners. Waheed-ur-Rehman for
Respondents.

NADIR KHAN AND 5 OTHERS ERS

VS

MUQADAR KHAN AND 13 OTHERS --RespondentS

Law:

Section:

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 49, 79, 80 & 117---Suit for declaration---Execution of sale deed---Document---Proof---Transaction with Pardanasheen lady---Long standing entries in the revenue record--- Scope---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 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…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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