Case Details

Citation(s)
1961 SLG 2171 1961 SLD 2171 = 1961 PLD 387
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 385 of 1954, decided on 28th January 1961.  
Presented By: M. R. Kayani, C. J. and Sajjad Ahmad, J  
Sh. Noor Ahmad with Muhammad Yusaf Khan for Muhammad Amin Khan for Appellants.   Ghias Muhammad for-
Respondents.   Date of hearing : 25th January 1961.

BAHADAR AND OTHERS-Appellants  

VERSUS

  SOHNA AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: S. 100

Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)

Section: S. 90

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100-Second Appeal-Whether defendant had or had not relinquished his rights under gift-Question of fact.   Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 90-Document thirty years old-Period of thirty years to be reckoned back from time when document is tendered for evidence. Section 90, Evidence Act, 1872 refers to the production of a document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, from proper custody for the purpose of proving it, and with all plausibility this means the time when the document is tendered for evidence by the person holding its proper custody. The presump tion attaching to old documents is founded on the difficulty in furnishing proof after thirty years, when the attesting witnesses and the executants may not be living, and should, therefore, be restricted to the time when evidence is to be produced.   Surendra Krishna Roy v. Mirza Muhammad Syed AU Mulawali A I R 1936 P C 15 rel.   Mahadeo Prasad v. Mst. Nasiban and another 54 I C 368 dissented from.   JUDGMENT   SAJJAD AHMAD, J.--This is a second appeal from the judgment of Sheikh Frooq Ahmad, Additional District Judge Lyallpur at Jhang, whereby, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Jhang, he dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellants.   The plaintiffs in their suit sought two reliefs, firstly, a declaration that they wereowners in possession, according to their ancestral ` shares ' of the property described as "alif " in the plaint, in respect of which they also claimed an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their rights and, secondly, they prayed for possession of 10 killas, described as property " be ", of which the defendants were alleged to be in wrongful possession. The suit proceeded on the averments that the land involved in the suit measuring about 1,146 kanals situated in village Roranwali, belonged to one Wahab,, ancestor of the parties, and that, on his death, it devolved on his six sons, named, Bahadur, Jahana, Ahmad, Shahmand, Muhammad and Rehan, in equal shares, each getting one-sixth, amounting to 187 kanals and 17 marlas. The last-named…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register