MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs UMAR HAYAT S — 2023 SCMR 1339 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD MUNIR VS UMAR HAYAT S. 42---Suit for declaration---Registered sale deed and exchange deed---Plea of fraud---Not established---Sale deed and exchange deed executed by plaintiffs' father was challenged on the plea that their father was unable to walk due to illness, so the defendants produced another person before the Sub-Registrar and got the disputed documents registered fraudulently, and that the Sub-Registrar did not mention their father's identity card number on the disputed documents---Validity---Neither the plaintiffs in their plaint nor any of their witnesses had alleged that the Sub-Registrar was in cahoots with the defendants---Disputed documents were registered by the Sub-Registrar/Naib Tehsildar, and he was produced as a witness by the defendants; he clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that the disputed documents were presented before him by the father himself, and he was identified by the lambardar, the statements of witnesses were recorded, and the father admitted that consideration amount had been received, and also acknowledged the exchange of land---During cross-examination, the Sub-Registrar/Naib Tehsildar admitted that the father's identity card number was not mentioned on the disputed documents, but stated that if there was no identity card number, the document was registered on the identification of a proper person, which included lambardar, councillors etc.---Plaintiffs' father was identified by the lambardar, who appeared in Court and confirmed it---Even without so, the father's identification would not have been difficult to ascertain as he was a lambardar himself, and generally the Sub-Registrar/Naib Tehsildar knows the lambardar of his area---Thus, in the given circumstances, merely on the basis of non-recording of the father's identity card number, it could not be said that any other person had appeared instead of the father at the time of registration of the disputed documents, and any fraud was committed---Since the plaintiffs, had failed to discharge their initial burden, it did not shift to the defendants to prove the transactions---Defendants not only produced all the witnesses to the disputed documents, the identifier, and the Sub-Registrar, but also produced all their records from the custody of the Record-Keeper before the Trial Court and from the statements of all of them, the transactions recorded in the disputed documents were proved---Suits for declaration filed by the plaintiffs were rightly dismissed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court---Appeals were allowed and impugned judgments and decrees of High Court were set-aside.

MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs UMAR HAYAT S — 2023 SCMR 1339 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 SCMR