Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: I,42,39,54

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

Section: 129(g)

(a)    Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, cancellation, recovery, permanent and mandatory injunction---Official documents, presumption of---Fraud, allegation of--Proof---Claim in the suit was that exchange agreement executed between the plaintiff and original owner of the suit-plot had entitled him to be its sole owner; that defendant was merely one of the two attesting witnesses of the said agreement, who was unlawfully claiming 50% share in the suit property---Stance of the defendant was that he and plaintiff had jointly purchased the suit property---Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---Record revealed that the original owner of the suit -property submitted an application (having been exhibited by the respondent/defendant) before the Capital Development Authority (C.D.A.) for the transfer of the suit-property in favour of (both ) the appellant/plaintiff and respondent / defendant---Respondent/defendant also got exhibited a declaration to the C.D.A. admitting the contents of original owner's said application for the transfer of the suit property; they had also submitted bank draft for an amount in favour of the C.D.A. for the transfer of the suit property---Appellant and respondent jointly swore an affidavit undertaking to indemnify the C.D.A. against all losses and damages that might be occasioned by the transfer of the suit property in their favour---It was not disputed that the appellant /plaintiff appearedbefore the C.D.A. along with respondent / defendant for the transfer of the suit property and, vide a transfer letter, the suit property was transferred jointly to the appellant and respondent---Documentary evidence especially the "declaration of transferee" and the affidavit/undertaking were of crucial importance since these documents bearing the appellant's signatures showed that the suit property was to be jointly transferred in the names of the appellant and respondent as the purchasers of the suit- property--Appellant appeared as a witness and admitted his signatures on the said documents ; he, being an educated person, could not claim to be ignorant as to the contents…