2022 PLD 89 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Full text

NOOR AHMED VS Syed MUHAMMAD RAHEEM Arts. 70, 72, 75, 117, 118, 125 & 126---Suit for declaration, cancellation of instruments and permanent injunction filed by petitioners---Respondents/defendants filed written statement, produced evidence and documents---Suit was concurrently dismissed---Petitioners contended that respondents had failed to establish their right as their eviction application was dismissed by Rent Controller and same was upheld up to the Supreme Court; that judgment passed by Trial Court was in violation of O. XX, R. 5 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908; that documents annexed by the respondents were forged/fabricated; that electricity bill was in the name of plaintiff---Validity---Plaintiff produced three witnesses---One witness stated in cross-examination that suit property was matrookah property and that the same was registered in name of plaintiff in Municipal Record---Second witness stated in cross-examination that he did not know whether the predecessor of plaintiff had purchased the suit property from certain seller---Attorney/son of the plaintiff stated that the suit property was owned by his father since independence; that the same was evacuee property; that they could not produce any document regarding the property being matrookah; that they could not produce any agreement, patta or transfer deed regarding ownership of the suit property---Heavy burden was on the plaintiff/petitioner to prove his title/ownership through cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence---Plaintiff had to stand on his own legs to succeed and could not take benefit from the weaknesses/shortcomings of the defendants---Petitioner had not produced the electricity bill in accordance with law, nor exhibited---Mere placing the photocopy of bill with the plaint could not be considered---Rent Controller was not mandated under the law to decide the title/ownership of property---Respondent produced/exhibited documents of suit house, order of Deputy Commissioner wherein transfer of lease in favour of predecessor of petitioners was sanctioned; receipts of sale/purchase, agreement, payment of Boom Bara, patta, renewal of patta, etc.---Petitioner failed to controvert the said documents and could not place evidence that such documents were forged/fabricated ones----Documents were duly exhibited without any objection----Presumption of truth was attached to such documents---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.