Zafar Khan 3

In the Court of Ch. Rasheed Ahmad Civil Judge Ist Class, Multan.

Mst. Memoona Sultan

Vs.

Syed Abdullah Ahmad

List of authorities referred to: On behalf of defendant. S.No. 1.

Citation. Registration Act,

Jist of Authority Sec-17 (1)---The following documents shall be registered namely: a)

Instruments

of

gift

of

immovable property. b) c) d)

Lease of Immovable property from year to year or for any time exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent.

e) Sec-49---No document required to be registered under this Act shall a)

operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent to or in immovable property, or

b) 2

Stamp Act.

confer any power to adopt.

Sec-35---No instrument chargeable

with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer unless such instrument is duly stamped. 3.

PLD 1983 Pesh. 108

Registration Act---XVI of 1908 Sections 17 & 49---Transfer of Property Act IV of 1882---Sec-52--Copy of Tamlik not registered or registered during pendency of suit--Held, does not confer any right upon person in whose favour executed.

4.

PLD S.C. 424 (b)

Registration Act---Sec-49 Transfer of Property Act---Sec. 53 (a)---no equitable doctrine, such as provided in section 53-A, T.P. Act, Held,

could

override

specific

provision of sec-49 Registration Act, so as to make an un-registered document, create title, if same required registration under sec-49, Registration Act, 1908. 5.

Qanoon-e-Shahadat

Article-79----If a document is

Order 1984.

required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence, untill two attesting witnesses at least have been called for the purpose of proving its execution.

6.

PLD 1996 Lah. 367.

Article 17 & 79---Agreement to sell

(D.B)

being instrument pertaining to

financial or future obligations, and having been rendered into righting, same was required to be attested by two men or one man and two women---such document would not be used in evidence unless at least two

attesting

witnesses

were

examined for such purpose---where such document was attested by two witnesses, requirement of Article 17 was complied with but only witness having been examined, document was not deemed to have been proved in accordance with law and same would

be

excluded

from

consideration. 7.

Stamp Act.

No instrument chargeable with duty

Sec-35.

shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer unless such instrument is duly stamped.

8.

1986 CLC 2836

Sec-13---Evidentiary value of a

Evidence Act---

document is altogether different from its admissibility and it was always for court to determine as to what weight was to be attached to a particular document brought on record.

9.

C.P.C. O 13, R 3.

The court is empowered to reject

at any stage of the suit, any document which is inadmissible in evidence even if no objection is raised from the opposite party. 10.

PLD 1997 Kar 292

Specific Relief Act, Sec-42, Registration Act, sec, 17 & 49 T.P. Act. Sec-54---Mere agreement to sell would not confer any right, title or ownership in as much as any transaction of sale in respect of immovable property worth Rs. 100/or upwards was required to be compulsorily registered---suit on the basis of the title therefore, was not maintainable. Such plaintiff having no right to property within meaning of sec. 42 Specific Relief Act 1877---plaintiff, therefore, had no locus standie to seek negative declaration in respect of right, title and ownership of property. O-7, R-11, C.P.C.----In such plaint of suit showing no cause of action plaint was not triable and was liable to rejection on such ground alone.

11. NLR 1994 U.C. 154 (c) O-VIII, R-1---Plead taken in written statement are not evidence by themselves. These pleas have to be proved by evidence. 12. PLD 1973 S.C. 160 at 164 (e)

Evidence Act Sec. 67, 47 and 145 C.P.C. O-VIII R-4---Documents which are not copies of judicial record, should not be received in

evidence without proof of signatures and handwritings of persons alleged to have signed or written them, even if such documents are brought on record

and

exhibited

without

objection. 13. PLD 1976 Kar. 142.

Evidence Act-Sec-21, 74 and 145 Previous statement of a person is not admissible without confrontation--deposition, if, however, admitted by the person making it in another case---admission presumed to be correct and as such could be proved by

certified

copy

without

necessitating calling in of witness to prove it. 14. 1990 CLC 26 (b)

Plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of his own case and not in the

weakness

in

the

case

of

defendant. 15. 1993 PSC 1412

Held---same as above.

16. NLR 1996 Clj 417.

Sec-35-A---C.P.C.---Sec-35-A Limit

of

Rs.

25,000/-

as

compensatory cost needs to be substantially raised as maximum amount of Rs. 25,000/- as cost would

not

be

adequate

to

compensate a litigant who has been subjected to false, frivolous and vexatious litigation. Submitted by: Zafar Iqbal Khan, Advocate High Court, 124-District Courts,Multan.

Counsel for the defendant In the Court of Mr. Muhammad Amir Munir, Civil Judge, Multan.

Mst. Haleema Begum

Vs.

Dilbar Hassan & another

Suit for Pre-emption. Application U/s 151 C.P.C. Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the applicant/plaintiff filed the above captioned suit, which was pending in this Hon’ble Court, in which date of hearing was fixed as 12.2.2001 for recording plaintiff’s evidence. 2. That the applicant/plaintiff did not produce any evidence, but instead made a statement, of course under a compromise, to withdraw her suit and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. 3. That no time of this Hon’ble Court has been consumed in recording evidence or hearing arguments and as such the applicant/plaintiff is entitled to the grant of certificate by this court for the refund of court fee under section 13 of the Court fee Act, 1870, read with sec-151 C.P.C. Reliance is placed upon PLD 1993 S.C. Page 76, wherein it is held, “The aim of the State is to make justice available to its citizens without placing undue burden on them.” Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that certificate for the refund of Rs. 2,400/- Court fee affixed by the applicant on her plaint may kindly be granted. Affidavit attached. Humble Applicant/plaintiff Dated: __________ (Mst. Haleema Begum) Through: Zafar Iqbal Khan, Advocate High Court,

124-District Courts,Multan. In the Court of Mr. Muhammad Amir Munir, Civil Judge, Multan.

Mst. Haleema Begum

Vs.

Dilbar Hassan & another

Suit for Pre-emption. Application U/s 151 C.P.C.

AFFIDAVIT of: Mst. Haleema Begum wife of Mirza Muhammad Shareef, caste Mughal, R/o Mohallah Islam Nagar, Vehari Road, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of March 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT IN THE COURT OF MR. MUHAMMAD AAMIR MUNIR, CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.

CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE COURT FEE ACT VII OF 1870 FOR THE REFUND OF COURT FEE. PRE-EMPTION SUIT. Mst. Haleema Begum wife of Mirza Muhammad Sharif, caste Mughal, R/o Mohallah Islam Nagar, Vehari Road, Mutlan. …….Plaintiff VERSUS 1. Dilbar Hassan S/o Zameer Ullah, caste Rajput Panwar, R/o Mouza Jalal Abad, Tehsil & District Multan. 2. Mirza Muhammad Basheer S/o Islam-ud-Din caste Mughal, R/o Mouza Bhaini, Mohallah Islam Nagar, Vehari Road, Multan. …….Defendants

Mst. Haleema Begum, plaintiff/petitioner moved an application for the refund of court fee on 13.3.2001 with the contention that the suit titled as above was pending in the court. The suit was at the initial stage. It is contended that case was withdrawn as the result of compromise. As per decision of higher courts, she is entitled to get back the court fee, which was of the value of Rs. 2,400/Certificate granted under section 13 of the Court Fee Act 1870. Amount of court fee ordered to be refunded to the applicant amounting to Rs. 2,400/- (two thousand four hundred only) vide order dated 21.3.2001 passed by this court. Civil Judge, Multan. Dated: 27.3.2001