Javed (c

IN THE COURT OF JAVED MEHMOOD SINDHU, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

Javed Mukhtiar

Vs.

Javed Iqbal

CIVIL APPEAL List of Authorities referred to by the counsel for appellant.

1. 2000 CLC 419 at 420

Sec-54 T.P. Act---Sale of immovable property---mere registration of sale deed would not operate to pass title to the vendee. Where there was neither

the

possession

of

the

property alleged to have been sold nor any proof of payment of consideration money was available, mere registration of sale deed would not operate to pass title to the vendee. 2. PLJ 1996 Pesh 214 at 216

Sale---sec 54 T.P. Act envisages the transfer of ownership of immovable property

for

promised---to

a

price

enforce

paid the

or sale

transaction, transferee is under legal obligation to establish, firstly that transfer was affected by a person having a title or authority to create right, secondly it was backed by passing of

sale

consideration

and

thirdly it was accompanied by delivery

of

possession---

mere registration of document by registrar by itself does not furnish proof of these elements which must

co-exist prior to execution and registration of deed--Onus to establish all these prerequisites lies on transferee. 3. NLR 1986 Civil 146 at 147 Evidence Act, S.68---Person relying on a document is bound to proof its execution---fact that document is registered

would

make

no

difference. 4. 1995 MLD 1714

T.P. Act, S.118, Qanoon-e-Shahadat Art. 118---Exchange of land claimed to have been effected fraudulently and by misrepresentation---onus to prove---plaintiff made a statement on oath in court that exchange in question had been effected through fraud and misrepresentation---onus, after such statement, would shift to defendant to prove that document of exchange was executed voluntarily and of free will.

5. PLD 1973 S.C. 160 at 164

Evidence Act, Ss. 47, 67, 145 & C.P.C.

O-13,

R-4---Documents

which are not copies of judicial record, should not be received in evidence without proof of signatures and handwriting of persons alleged to have signed or written them, even if such documents are brought on record

and

exhibited

without

objection. 6. NLR 1994 SD 631

Evidence Act, S. 90---Production of copy

of

deed

does

not

raise

presumption of due execution of original.

7. NLR 1984 Scj 32

Evidence Act, S. 74 (2)---Document does not become a public document merely because it is registered--registered document in order to be public document has to be one execution of which is not disputed— refusal

to

produce

grant

permission

to

certified

copies

of

whose

execution

is

documents

denied---unexceptionable. 8. PLD 1979 B.J. 31.

Evidence Act, S.68---Execution of document---proof---execution of a registered

document

denied---

production per se of a certified copy of such document, held, no proof of document having been executed by person from whom it purports to be executed. 9. NLR 1993 Rev. 143

Art. 128 of Limitation Act---6 years limitation time for filing declaratory suit involving challenge to entry in Jamabandi starts from date of knowledge of entry in Jamabandi.

10. 1993 MLD 1023

Court Fee Act, S. 7 (iv) (c)--Plaintiff in terms of S. 7 (iv) (c) Court fee act is entitled to put his own valuation on the relief sought in the plaint.

11. PLD 1991 AJK 66

Court Fee Act, S. 7 (iv) (c) and S. 42 Specific

Relief

Act---Court

fee

payable on suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession--where plaintiff could not ask for main relief

viz the possession

without asking for a declaration,

such

suit

would

be

one

for

declaration with consequential for possession---suit in such a case would be covered by provision of S. & (iv) (c). 12. 1984 PSC 1230 at 1232

Court Fee Act, S. 7 (iv) (c) and S. 42 Specific

Relief

Act---Court

fee

payable on suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession--where plaintiff could not ask for main relief

viz the possession

without asking for a declaration, such

suit

would

be

one

for

declaration with consequential for possession---suit in such a case would be covered by provision of S. & (iv) (c). 13. 1979 CLC 867

Court Fee Act, S. 7 (iv) (c) and S. 42 Specific

Relief

Act---Court

fee

payable on suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession--where plaintiff could not ask for main relief

viz the possession

without asking for a declaration, such

suit

would

be

one

for

declaration with consequential for possession---suit in such a case would be covered by provision of S. & (iv) (c).

Submitted by: Zaffar Iqbal Khan, Afdvocate High Court, Counsel for appellant.