Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42,39

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: VI,4

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

Section: 17,49,70,72,81,91,92,129

Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: XVII,42(7)

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: IV,54

(a)    Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss.42, 39---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.4---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation---Sale mutation---Proof---Non-mentioning of particular/details of fraud---Admission as to execution of mutation---Discrepancy in evidence as to accrual of cause of action---Absence of prosecution witnesses at the time of proceedings of mutation---Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiff had never denied the execution of mutation passed on his statement and in the presence of those who had signed the mutation---Consideration was paid for the total property, which was subject matter of the mutation---PW.1 deposed that he gained the knowledge about eight years after the mutation---PW.1 and PW.2 in their examination-in-chief did not state particular manners and mode of fraud and in their cross-examination they admitted that they were not present at the time of proceedings of mutation, thus, most part of their statements were comprised of hearsay evidence---There was discrepancy about the period of accrual of cause of action in the statement of PW.2 and in the plaint---Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.(b)    Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Arts.49, 70, 72, 91, 92 129---Mutation---Onus to proof---Oral and documentary evidence---Preference---Scope---Presumption of genuineness attached to documentary evidence---Scope---Once a document has been proved in accordance with law, the genuineness of its contents could be presumed and the rule that the "document speaks for itself' (acta probant sese ipsa) could be deployed---Rationale behind the presumptions attached to written documents stem out of both principles as well as policy---Presumptions are a matter of principle because written documents are, by their very nature, to be accorded a higher degree of credibility as opposed to oral evidence; otherwise, it would bring uncertainty and chaos if written documents (and valuable rights, if any, attached to them) are allowed to be set aside on the basis of oral evidence.Muhammad Mumtaz Shah (deceased) through LRs. and others v. Ghulam Hussain Shah (deceased)…