Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 2751 D of 1983, decided on 11th January,1986.

---O.XIII, Rr.l & 2--Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 67--Gift--Document of doubtful authenticity--Evidentiary value of--Gift deed produced in evidence being of doubtful authenticity at the very face of it, not supported by scribe and stamp vender and not mentioned earlier stage in written statement or list of reliance, held carried no evidentiary value.

---S. 115--Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of--Decision of Appellate Court below arrived at without committing any illegality or material irregularity, held, could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court.

Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Kung for Petitioners.

Ch Abdul Ghani for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 11th January, 1986.

Civil Revision Nos. 275 and 276 of 1983 pertain to a house and a shop. Ali Muhammad was the owner of the property in dispute. He had three sons, namely, Muhammad Shafi, Abdul Majid and Abdul Salam and two daughters Mst. Hajran and Zubaida. Muhammad Shafi, Hajran and Zubaida brought two different suits for the partition of the house and the shop alleging to be the heirs of Ali Muhammad. Abdul Majid and Abdul Salam contended that the house and shop had been donated to ,them by their father by means of gift deed dated 31-12-1970 and the respondents had no right to get it partitioned. The suit was filed on 22-3-1978 and Hajran withdrew the suit on 8-7-1981. Muhammad Shafi and Abdul Majid claimed the partition of this property on the basis of inheritance. The petitioners, who were defendants in the original suit raised a number of pleas, which gave rise to a number of issues. But before me, only issue No.5 has been mooted, which is as follows:-

"5. Whether Ali Muhammad had gifted away the suit property to the defendants. If so its effect "

2. The petitioners have produced on the file Exh. D/1 the original gift deed, which is stated to have been executed by Ali Muhammad their father in their favour on 23-2-1976. In their written statement, this document has not been mentioned at all nor it was produced at the time of filing of the written statement. Even in the list of reliance, this document was not mentioned. A cursory glance on this document shows that the date appears to have been interpolated in the original document, and the signatures of Ali Muhammad on this document do not tally with his signatures on the back of this document. Furthermore, the name of Muhammad Sharif Raza, the Stamp vendor appears to have I been added later on. The original document has been stained with an oily hand so that it may put on an old look. When asked why Muhammad Shafi another son of Ali Muhammad was excluded from the gift, it was pointed out that Muhammad Shafi was given house prior to the execution of this gift deed. There is no evidence that another house was given to him or that any gift deed was executed by Ali Muhammad in favour of Muhammad Shafi who has asserted that he had purchased an evacuee house and it was not given to him by his father. The original gift deed is of doubtful authenticity. Its scribe and the stamp vendor have not been produced by the petitioners. It has been suggested to Noor Muhammad D.W. 2 that there are a number of cases pending against the deed writer for taking certain deeds and he showed his ignorance about this fact. The learned Additional District Judge does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity in arriving at a correct decision. I, therefore, see no merit in both these civil revisions, which have been heard and decided together and dismiss the same with costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.