livelawpk.com - The Article 103 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 bars ---

The Article 103 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 bars Oral Evidence in the presence of Written Agreements unless there is Evidence of Fraud or Coercion --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

2 months, 3 weeks
63

The Article 103 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 bars Oral Evidence in the presence of Written Agreements unless there is Evidence of Fraud or Coercion --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

Islamabad 27-09-2024: The Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) has dismissed a revision petition filed by Muhammad Arif in a property dispute case, reinforcing the principle that documentary evidence holds greater legal weight than oral testimony. The case, Muhammad Arif Vs. Javaid Khan (Civil Revision No. 404-D of 2015), revolved around a contentious sale agreement over a piece of land in District Attock.

In his suit, Muhammad Arif sought a declaration that he was the rightful owner of the land in question and claimed that any sale deed or agreement procured by the respondent, Javaid Khan, was unlawful and should be declared inoperative. The Trial Court initially dismissed Arif’s suit and granted a decree for the specific performance of the contract in favor of Javaid Khan. Arif appealed the decision, and the Appellate Court partially accepted the appeal, setting aside the specific performance decree but upholding the dismissal of Arif’s suit.

The Court emphasized the precedence of documentary evidence over oral testimony, a principle reaffirmed by past Supreme Court rulings. The judgment highlighted that oral assertions are insufficient to override written agreements, particularly when documents are signed and acknowledged by the disputing parties. This principle was supported by notable cases such as Abdul Ghani and others Vs. Mst. Yasmeen Khan and others (2011 SCMR 837) and Azeem Khan and another Vs. Mujahid Khan and others (2016 SCMR 274).

The Court cited Article 103, which bars oral evidence in the presence of written agreements unless there is evidence of fraud or duress. The ruling underscored that written agreements reflect deliberate settlements, and once documented, the terms of the agreement cannot be challenged by oral evidence alone. This principle was supported by Mst. Baswar Sultan Vs. Mst. Adeeba Alvi (2002 SCMR 326).

Arif’s claim that he was illiterate and unaware of the contents of the sale agreement was rejected by the Court. It was found that he had admitted to signing the document and receiving token money for the property. The Court ruled that illiteracy is not a sufficient defense to invalidate a signed contract without clear evidence of fraud or coercion.

In conclusion, the Court found no material irregularities or misreading of evidence in the concurrent decisions of the lower Courts. It upheld the dismissal of Muhammad Arif’s suit, affirming the importance of documentary evidence in property disputes and denying the petitioner any relief.