7. In view of the above, when the respondents have
not produced the witnesses in whose presence the bargain has
struck in, consideration has been paid, if for the sake of
arguments it is accepted that the petitioner thumb marked the
disputed mutations, even then after denial, the same would not
be said to have been proved, because not only mere signing or
putting thumb-mark on a document, but something more must
be proved for its due execution, which is lacking in this case. In
this regard reliance is placed on Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah
and others v. Asghar Hsusain Shah and others (2007 SCMR
1884), wherein it has been held:
„According to Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat,
1984, execution of a document is to be proved to
be in the handwriting or signature or thumb-mark
of the alleged executant, which would mean
signing or putting thumb-mark over a document as
consenting party thereto. Execution of document
would not only mean mere signing or putting
thumb-impression but something more than mere
signing or putting thumb-impression by executant.
It must be proved that thumb-mark was made in
the presence of witness in whose presence the
document was written and read over and it was understood by the vendor and would not only be
limited to merely signing a name or placing
thumb-impression upon a blank sheet of paper so
as to prove the document to have been executed
whose identification should also be proved by
reliable and authentic evidence that a person who
has affixed thumb-mark or signature was the same
person who owned the land and sold the same to
be vendee. Execution would mean series of acts,
which would complete the execution. Mere singing
or putting thumb-mark would not amount to
execution in terms of Article 78 of Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984. A document which is not
proved is inadmissible in evidence, unless strict
proof of it is waived.‟
Part of Judgment of
LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR
Civil Revision652-11
| 2018 LHC 667 |
0 comments:
Post a Comment