Proof required by law for determining the execution and genuineness of document.

The conclusion drawn by the apex Court in Abdul Majeed’s case (supra) in this regard being directly applicable in the situation discussed herein above is reflected below:- (Abdul Majeed and others versus Muhammad Subhan and 2 others (1999 SCMR 1245),)

“It is axiomatic principle of law that a registered deed by itself, without proof of the execution and the genuineness of the transaction covered by it, would not confer any right. Similarly, a mutation although acted upon in Revenue Record, would not by its own force be sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transaction to which it purports unless the genuineness of the transaction is proved. There is no cavil with the proposition that these documents being part of public record are admissible in evidence but they by their own force would not prove the genuineness and execution of that to which they relate unless the transaction covered by them is substantiated from independent and reliable source. Admissibility is to be distinguished from proof required by law for determining the execution and genuineness of document.”

Used in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Civil Rev. Against Decree
784-D-06
2018 LHC 3056