Registered Documents hold a Presumption of Authenticity under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 unless Substantiate Evidence of Fraud and Forgery is proved --- Islamabad High Court, Islamabad
Islamabad 22-11-2024: In a landmark decision, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) overturned a ruling by the Additional District Court, reinstating the Civil Court’s decree in favor of a petitioner who sought the specific performance of a registered sale agreement for a property in Islamabad. The decision underscores the legal presumption of authenticity afforded to registered documents and clarifies evidentiary burdens in cases involving allegations of fraud.
The case arose from a dispute over the sale of Shop No. 35, Talal Plaza, Sector I-9, Islamabad. The petitioner, Mohammad Saeed Mughal, entered into a registered sale agreement dated July 22, 1996, with the respondents. However, the respondents later denied the agreement’s validity, alleging forgery and fabrication. The Civil Court ruled in favor of the petitioner in 2013, but the Additional District Court reversed this decision in 2015.
The Petitioner challenged the reversal, arguing that the registered agreement carried a presumption of truth and the respondents had failed to substantiate their fraud allegations.
The Court reaffirmed that registered documents hold a presumption of authenticity under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (QSO). The respondents’ mere denial of the agreement’s execution was deemed insufficient to rebut this presumption.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) held that the burden to prove fraud or forgery lies on the party making such allegations. The respondents failed to produce credible evidence, relying instead on a bald denial.
Testimony by the respondents’ attorney, who lacked personal knowledge of the transaction, was deemed inadmissible under Article 71 of QSO. The Court emphasized that only witnesses with direct knowledge of the facts could testify in such cases.
Mr. Justice Babar Sattar, delivering the judgment, noted several procedural irregularities in the respondents’ defense. These included contradictory written statements filed by different attorneys and the absence of personal testimony from the respondents. The Court highlighted that the respondents’ failure to produce evidence or challenge the petitioner’s claims effectively shifted the evidentiary burden back onto them.
The Court also underscored the significance of possession, noting that the petitioner had been in uninterrupted possession of the property since 1997, further bolstering his claim.
The judgment referenced key precedents, including:
- Mst. Nazeeran Vs. Ali Bux (2024 SCMR 1271): Affirming the presumption of truth for registered documents and evidentiary burdens.
- Abdul Ghafoor Vs. Mukhtar Ahmed Khan (2006 SCMR 1144): Highlighting the need for substantial evidence to challenge registered documents.
- Abdul Qayyum Vs. Mohammad Sadiq (2007 SCMR 957): Limiting the admissibility of attorney testimony in matters requiring personal knowledge.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) reinstated the Civil Court’s decree, ordering the specific performance of the registered sale agreement. It ruled that the respondents failed to substantiate their allegations of fraud and forgery, and the petitioner’s evidence, including the registered agreement and payment receipts, remained unchallenged.
This judgment reinforces the evidentiary value of registered documents and sets a high bar for allegations of fraud. It also clarifies the limitations on attorney testimony and emphasizes the procedural diligence required in civil litigation.
Powered by Froala Editor
