Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42 ,54

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 79

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 115

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----Ss. 42 & 54--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), S. 115--Suit for declaration & permanent injunction--Decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Civil revision--High Court recovered concurrent finding--Punchayat nama--No misreading & non-reading of evidence--Revenue mutation--Gift mutation--Oral family arrangement--Proof document--It is, by now, settled that no party could be permitted to set up a new case for first time before this Court, particularly one requiring factual inquiry--Equally settled is principle that evidence beyond pleadings is of no legal consequence, and no finding can be founded on a case never pleaded--Since said contention was neither pleaded nor pressed before Courts below, same cannot be entertained at this belated stage--This plea therefore, being an afterthought and outside pleadings, deserves outright rejection--Once Mutation No. 593 stood admitted and formed part of official revenue record, burden squarely rested upon appellants to produce cogent, trustworthy and legally admissible evidence showing that transaction was not an outright transfer but merely an arrangement of amanat--No such independent documentary material has been produced--plea rests only on oral testimony, which is inherently insufficient to dislodge documentary title--Appeal dismissed. [P. 447] A & B Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Art. 79--Panchayat nama--Proof of documents--It was held that “Nothing short of two attesting witnesses if alive and capable of giving evidence can even be imagined for proving its execution.” Admittedly, alleged Panchayat Nama was not proved through required number of attesting witnesses in manner contemplated by law; hence, it could not be read in evidence.                                                              [P. 451] C Unproved Panchayat Nama-- ----Once…