Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 12 , 79

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

Section: 129(g) , 79

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Suit for specific performance--Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested---Scope---Plaintiff assailed the concurrent dismissal of his suit for specific performance---Validity--Plaintiff had got examined only one of the two witnesses who had allegedly attested the execution of the sale agreement---Plaintiff had although argued that the other witness had passed away but no evidence was produced to this effect--Requirement of Art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was not met and consequently the plaintiff had not proved execution of the sale agreement---Alleged payment had not been proved independently---Suit land had been granted by the Government to respondent on harap basis, and it could not have been sold/transferred in any case---Impugned judgments and decrees did not suffer from any legal infirmity---Appeal was dismissed.

(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Art. 79---Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested--Scope---Requirement of Art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, is that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until two attesting witnesses at least have been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be two attesting witnesses alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.

(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Arts. 79 & 129(g)---Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested---Withholding best evidence---Scope---Where mandatory requirement of Art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, is not met by examining only one of the attesting witnesses, the Court may draw an adverse presumption under Illustration (g) of Art. 129 that had the second witness been called, he would not have supported the case of the plaintiff.