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

Section: 90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,100,129,72,78 ,79

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 8

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts.90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100 & 129---Presumptions---Scope---Presumptions mentioned in Arts. 90 to 95 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, are obligatory whereas presumption mentioned under Arts. 96 to 98, 100 and 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, are permissive in nature and court may or may not raise a presumption. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 8---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 72, 78, 79 & 100---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Suit for recovery of possession---Thirty years old document---Presumption---Concurrent findings of fact---Plaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit land and sought recovery of its possession---Defendants relying upon agreement to sell dated 1-6-1967 asserted that their predecessor-in-interest purchased suit land from predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs and since then they were owners in possession---Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court, concurrently decreed suit and appeal in favour of plaintiffs---Plea raised by defendants was that presumption of truth was attached to agreement to sell in their possession---Validity---Presumption was attached to thirty years old document, which had come from proper custody---Court had discretion to presume that signature / thumb impression and every other part of such document, which purported to be in hand writing of any person, was in that person's handwriting and it was duly executed by the person by whom it was purported to be executed---Proof of such agreement would be sine qua non for proving ownership of defendants---Though provisions of Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, were not applicable as agreement was allegedly executed on 1-6-1967 but in view of Art. 78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, document of sale agreement allegedly said to have been signed/thumb impressed by predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs was to be proved to be their thumb impression---Plaintiffs in their statement had totally denied execution of any deed between predecessors-in-interest of parties and stated that it was fake and bogus document---Defendants were to prove that agreement in question had been thumb impressed by…

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