GHULAM MUSTAFA vs GHULAM HAIDER arts — 2025 PLD 152 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

GHULAM MUSTAFA VS GHULAM HAIDER arts. 102 & 103---Gift-mutation, challenging of---Delivery of possession, absence of---Revocation of gift---Scope---Documentary evidence, presence of---Oral assertion---Scope and effect---Settlement Officer set-aside gift-mutation accepting application of the donor filed by him in his life ('the gift mutation-in-question') which findings were maintained upto the Board of Revenue---Contention of the petitioners/ donees was that the question whether the gift/land was handed over to the donees required determination through oral evidence---Validity---In the present case, the recital in the mutation of the gift mutation-in-question did not state that the purported subject matter of the gift was handed over to the donees---article 102 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 ('the Order 1984') provides that when the terms of a contract, grant or any deposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be admissible to prove the terms of such contract, grant or other deposition of property or of such matter except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the relevant provision---article 102 of the Order, 1984 provides that no oral evidence could be led to contradict the contents of the written document as the same is deemed inadmissible in the law---In essence, the oral evidence cannot outweigh documentary evidence---The documentary evidence that is not objected at the relevant time, would prevail against oral evidence, regardless of how abundant the latter may be---Mere oral assertions are insufficient to rebut documentary evidence, which holds greater weight and credibility---article 103 of the Order 1984 excludes oral statements made between the parties to any instrument or their representative---The rationale behind this provision is that a written agreement reflects a deliberate and well considered settlement---Furthermore, a party acknowledging a fact in writing is protected from the potential issue of mischief, failure and memory lapses---Once an agreement has been reduced to writing, oral evidence is excluded when proving the terms, as against the terms specifically articulated in writing---In the present case, the gift mutation relied upon by petitioners indicated "non delivery" of the subject gift/land to the donees---The probability of the petitioners to establish their case before the Civil Court by producing oral evidence, in presence of the documentary evidence, would not enhance their case, therefore, impugned orders concerning petitioners were sustained---No illegality had been noticed in the impugned gift-mutation cancelling orders passed by revenue authorities---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

GHULAM MUSTAFA vs GHULAM HAIDER arts — 2025 PLD 152 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD