Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)

Section: 65,90

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

Section: 76,77,100,114

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42,54

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11IV,VI,1

(a)    Evidence Act (I of 1872)-------Ss. 65 & 90---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 76, 77, 100 & 114--Specific Relief Act (I of 1872), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration with perpetual injunction---Oral gift and execution of deed---Essential ingredient of gift---Proof--Absence of details of oral gift---Effect---Presumption attached to thirty years old documents---Scope---Non-production of original deed and witnesses thereof---Suit instituted by the respondents was decreed and the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed---Validity---Thirty years old document when relied upon by the petitioners/defendants and refuted by the respondents/plaintiffs then petitioners were required to prove not only execution of the deed but the basic essential ingredients of gift along with the details of alienation of the property--Neither any documentary nor any oral evidence was available that when and at which particular place, the declaration of the gift i.e., offer and acceptance, was taken place or erstwhile predecessor had divested himself from the possession of the property, had been proved by the petitioners---Mere age of the document as of thirty years old was not sufficient to hold that it was executed and was deemed to be proved---Petitioners had alleged the alienation in two series and they were required to prove it but not even an iota of evidence was available to substantiate their contention except the production of documents which too had not been produced in original before the court---Law had provided a remedy for proving a document through secondary evidence which was an exception to general rule and only meant for the purpose to cater a genuine need and hardship, which could not be allowed in routine or without complying with the requirements mentioned under S. 65 of the Evidence Act of 1872 (Act) or Arts. 76 and 77 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (Order)---Mere production of deed before the court especially when the validity thereof was questioned by the respondents, the benefit of S. 90 of the Act or that of Art.100 of the Order could not be extended in favor of the petitioners--Civil Revision was dismissed in limine,…