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

Section: 117 & 120

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42, 39 & 54

(a) Maxim-------Secundum allegata et probata---Meaning---Who lodges a fact must prove it---Applicability. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Arts. 117 & 120---Fraudulent document---Onus to prove---Shifting of onus, principle of---Applicability---Duty and obligation of beneficiary of document to prove the same in accordance with the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Initial burden to prove execution of document is on the party which is relying on the document---Once such onus is discharged, burden to prove factum of fraud or undue influence or genuineness of documents shifts to party which alleges fraud. Akhtar Ali v. University of the Punjab 1979 SCMR 549 and Haji Muhammad Khan and others v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 2439 rel.(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-------Art. 185---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42, 39 & 54---Declaration of title---Concurrent findings of fact by two Courts below---Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court---Scope---Findings of fact---Miscarriage of justice---Onus to prove---Scope---Suit filed by plaintiff was decreed in his favour but Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction restored and decree passed by Trial Court---Validity---Supreme Court normally could not go behind finding of fact by High Court, unless it was shown that the findings on the face of it amounted to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice or if there had been misapplication of principle relating to appreciation of evidence, or, finally, if the finding could be demonstrated to be physically impossible---Such being the practice and rule of Supreme Court in civil appeals, burden lay heavily on appellant to show that findings recorded by High Court were not sustainable on record and should be interfered with by Supreme Court---Defendant failed to bring the case within the parameters prescribed by Supreme Court in various pronouncements---Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent conclusions arrived at by the courts below, Trial Court as well as High Court, while exercising power under Art.185 of the Constitution---Appeal was…