Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,39

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

Section: 117,118,103

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 54

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 39---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54---Suit for declaration---Cancellation of mutation---Sale transaction---Fraud---Scope claimed that the patwari obtained his thumb impression and signature on certain documents on the pretext of attestation of inheritance mutation, however, he subsequently came to know that impugned sale mutation was sanctioned in favour of the defendant---Trial Court decreed the suit whereas Appellate Court dismissed the appeal---Validity---Perusal of roznamcha revealed that no reference to sale was made therein---Naib Tehsildar who had accorded sanction to the mutation had categorically admitted that the seller had not signed and thumb impressed in his presence---Marginal witnesses to the impugned mutation were examined before the Court, albeit, they had refused to get recorded any statement regarding authenticity or otherwise of the mutation---Preponderance of evidence was surely in favour of the plaintiff, as he was able to produce strong and sufficient evidence in support of his claim, while the defendant had remained unable to produce any solid and credible evidence to substantiate her claims and more so the entire evidence produced by the defendant was not worthy of credence to diminish the evidentiary value of what was produced by the plaintiff---Defendant had desperately failed to prove the sale transaction appearing/embodied in the impugned mutation by producing the witnesses in whose presence the sale price was paid---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 117 118---Burden of proof---On whom burden of proof lies---Scope---Initial burden to prove a claim is on the party seeking the aid of the Court, but this onus of proof shifts and oscillates---Once the parties have adduced their respective evidence in support of their claims, then it is preponderance of evidence, which rules the scale of relief---Such is only when the Court deciding the lis is unable to decide the matter on the evidence produced by the parties, that the significance of onus of proof would be revived and govern the decision. (c) Transfer 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