Mere factum that signatures of Secretary Union Council as well as Nazim appeared on the Death certificate of donor was not sufficient to hold that said document was admissible in evidence until original record was presented before the Trial Court to compare with the same-

 2017 YLR 2229

Mere factum that signatures of Secretary Union Council as well as Nazim appeared on the Death certificate of donor was not sufficient to hold that said document was admissible in evidence until original record was presented before the Trial Court to compare with the same---Neither Secretary Union Council nor Nazim who put their signatures on the Death certificate were brought to the witness-box to prove the contents of said document---Copy of Death certificate was to be taken out of consideration---Production of document on record and its proof were two independent aspects---Death certificate could not be treated to be attested copy only for the reason that same was signed by the Secretary/Nazim---No appending certificate on the said document was available which could satisfy that it was a correct copy of the original---Mere fact that no objection was taken to said certificate at the time of its exhibition would not make the same admissible in evidence which otherwise could not be admitted under the law---Defendants had withheld the best evidence which was available to them in the shape of Custodian of Register of death entries and an adverse inference would be drawn against them---Copy of death entry was not copy of judicial record which could not be received in evidence without the proof of signatures and writing of the person alleged to have signed or written the same even if such documents brought on record were exhibited without objection---Whenever execution or validity of a registered document was denied then such document would lose sanctity of being presumed to be correct---Veracity of such document would depend upon quantum and quality of evidence to be produced to prove its execution---Only restricted presumption would attach that registration proceedings were regularly and honestly carried out by the attesting officer---Said presumption attached to its certificate was always rebutable---Whenever execution of an instrument was denied then such presumption was deduced to have been sufficiently rebutted---Onus to prove that document was executed and transaction did take place would lie upon the person who had alleged said execution---Presumption in favour of a registered instrument did not dispense with the necessity of showing that person who admitted the execution before the attesting officer was not an imposter but the same person---Alleged gift deed was executed prior to the promulgation of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Only one attesting witness was sufficient to prove the execution/attestation of impugned gift deed---Defendants produced one attesting witness of said deed in the witness-box and got recorded his statement-in-chief but he was not produced for cross-examination---Statement without cross-examination would not carry any weight---Neither Stamp Vendor, Deed Writer and Identifier of donor were produced nor Sub-Registrar was got examined who could be star witnesses to prove that executant had appeared for purchase of stamp paper who got executed the gift deed and after due identification and verification instrument was validly attested---Beneficiaries/ defendants had failed to prove the transaction of gift independently through sufficient material---Admissibility of document and evidentiary value of the same having a life of more than 30-years were two different aspects---Document more than 30-years old was admissible without production of the marginal witnesses or the executant of the same but court was not required to presume contents of such documents to be true---Impugned gift deed was procured while practicing fraud, misrepresentation and impersonation---Every legal heir would become co-owner in the legacy of his predecessor as soon as he died irrespective of the fact whether entries in the revenue record with regard to an agricultural land were made in their names or not---Cogent, tangible and un-rebutted evidence was required to oust a co-owner from the joint corpus of an undivided immovable property which was lacking in the present case---Neither limitation nor conduct of plaintiffs could estop them from claiming their legal share---Mere passage of time did not extinguish inheritance rights of plaintiffs---Every new entry in the revenue record on the basis of fraudulent instrument would give rise to a fresh cause of action---Present suit could not be declared to be time barred---Appellate Court had correctly appreciated the evidence of the parties while decreeing the suit---No illegality, perversity or jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Appellate Court---Revision was dismissed with cost throughout.