NAZIR AHMED Deceased through LRs vs KARIM BAKHSH (Late) through LRs
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a revision petition regarding a suit for declaration of ownership of land. The petitioners based their claim on an agreement to sell allegedly executed in 1934, arguing that because the document was over 30 years old, it was entitled to a presumption of truth under the law. The core legal question was whether the mere age of a document automatically grants it a presumption of truth when its execution is challenged as a forgery. The Supreme Court held that the presumption of truth for documents over 30 years old is not absolute; it is a condition precedent that there be no doubt regarding the document's valid execution. Because the respondents categorically challenged the document as forged, the burden of proof remained on the petitioners to prove its execution, which they failed to do. Furthermore, the Court noted the unexplained 50-year delay in asserting the claim. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the presumption of truth does not apply to disputed, forged documents.
- Does the mere age of a document (over 30 years) automatically entitle it to a presumption of truth under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- What is the effect of a categorical denial of the execution of an ancient document by the opposing party on the burden of proof?
- Is a party entitled to the benefit of the presumption of truth for an ancient document if its execution is challenged as a forgery?
- Article 100, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
ORDER
1. IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against a judgment of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 19.04.2012. Through the impugned judgment, a revision petition (C. R. No.514-D of 2000) filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. 2.The brief facts necessary for decision of this lis are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration on 03.03.1983 claiming to be owners of the suit land measuring 12 kanals which allegedly formed part of the land that their predecessors-in-interest had purchased from those of the Respondents.
3. The suit was based on an agreement to sell allegedly executed on 21.03.1934. It was claimed that a sale deed could not be executed for some reason, however, since the document was more than 30 years old and the petitioners were in possession, a presumption of truth was attached to it. On such basis the petitioners were entitled to a declaration in their favour.
4. 3.The trial Court decreed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.1992. However, the appellate Court set aside the decree and a revision petition filed by the petitioners before the High Court met the same fate. Hence, this petition.
5. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly the document on which the Petitioners' suit was based was more than 30 years old. Therefore, the learned appellate Court as well as the revisional Court erred in law in refusing to give the benefit of a presumption of truth to the Petitioners. He further submits that since a presumption of truth was attached to the document in question, the petitioners could not have been called upon to explain the delay of 50 years in approaching the Court.
6. 5.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the record with his assistance.
7. We find that the argument that a presumption of truth was attached to the document in question because it was allegedly more than 30 years old is misconceived. It is settled law that the condition precedent for grant of benefit of presumption of truth to a document which is more than 30 years old is that there is no doubt about the valid execution of the same. It is clear from the record that the Respondents had categorically stated in their written statement that the alleged agreement to sell was a forged document. In these circumstances, onus was on the petitioners to prove execution of the document in accordance with law. Having failed to do so, the petitioners were not entitled to rely on the age of the document to claim the benefit of a presumption of truth in terms of Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
8. 6.We have specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to explain the delay of more than 50 years in approaching the Courts of law to assert their alleged right. The learned counsel has not been able to offer any plausible or reasonable explanation for such failure. Even otherwise, we have not found any legal, procedural or jurisdictional error or flaw in the impugned judgment that may call for interference by this Court.
9. 7.For reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 6 cases
- Yousuf vs Muhammad Akbar and others 2024 CLC 1085
- FAIZULLAH KHAN Versus GUL DARAZ KHAN 2022 CLC 626
- Mst. Sharifan Naseem etc vs Nasir Mehmood etc 2021 PLJ Lahore 304
- S. Shafique-Ur-Rehman through LRs vs Ministry Of Housing And Works 2020 MLD 1428
- SABZ ALI KHAN Versus MST. BIBI NAIK ZADA 2020 CLC 1048
- Syed ABDUL MANAN Versus Malik ASMATULLAH 2019 CLC 1096