In the Court of Ch.

Rasheed Ahmad Civil Judge Ist Class,

Multan.

Mst. Memoona Sultan Vs. Syed Abdullah Ahmad

List of authorities referred to: -

On behalf of defendant.

S.No. Citation. Jist of Authority

1. Registration Act, Sec-17 (1)---The following
documents shall be registered
namely: -
a) Instruments of gift of
immovable property.
b)
c)
d) Lease of Immovable property
from year to year or for any
time exceeding one year or
reserving a yearly rent.
e)
Sec-49---No document required to
be registered under this Act shall
a) operate to create, declare,
assign, limit or extinguish
whether in present or in
future, any right, title or
interest, whether vested or
contingent to or in immovable
property, or
b) confer any power to adopt.

2 Stamp Act. Sec-35---No instrument chargeable

 with duty shall be admitted in
evidence for any purpose by any
person having by law or consent of
parties authority to receive evidence,
or shall be acted upon, registered or
authenticated by any such person or
by any public officer unless such
instrument is duly stamped.

3. PLD 1983 Pesh. 108 Registration Act---XVI of 1908

Sections 17 & 49---Transfer of
Property Act IV of 1882---Sec-52---
Copy of Tamlik not registered or
registered during pendency of suit---
Held, does not confer any right upon
person in whose favour executed.

4. PLD S.C. 424 (b) Registration Act---Sec-49

Transfer of Property Act---Sec. 53
(a)---no equitable doctrine, such as
provided in section 53-A, T.P. Act,
Held, could override specific
provision of sec-49 Registration Act,
so as to make an un-registered
document, create title, if same
required registration under sec-49,
Registration Act, 1908.

5. Qanoon-e-Shahadat Article-79----If a document is

Order 1984. required by law to be attested, it
shall not be used as evidence, untill
two attesting witnesses at least have
been called for the purpose of
proving its execution.

6. PLD 1996 Lah. 367. Article 17 & 79---Agreement to sell

(D.B) being instrument pertaining to
 financial or future obligations, and
having been rendered into righting,
same was required to be attested by
two men or one man and two
women---such document would not
be used in evidence unless at least
two attesting witnesses were
examined for such purpose---where
such document was attested by two
witnesses, requirement of Article 17
was complied with but only witness
having been examined, document
was not deemed to have been proved
in accordance with law and same
would be excluded from
consideration.

7. Stamp Act. No instrument chargeable with duty

Sec-35. shall be admitted in evidence for any
purpose by any person having by
law or consent of parties, authority
to receive evidence or shall be acted
upon, registered or authenticated by
any such person or by any public
officer unless such instrument is
duly stamped.

8. 1986 CLC 2836 Sec-13---Evidentiary value of a

Evidence Act--- document is altogether different
from its admissibility and it was
always for court to determine as to
what weight was to be attached to a
particular document brought on
record.

9. C.P.C. O 13, R 3. The court is empowered to reject

 at any stage of the suit, any
document which is inadmissible in
evidence even if no objection is
raised from the opposite party.

10. PLD 1997 Kar 292 Specific Relief Act, Sec-42,

Registration Act, sec, 17 & 49
T.P. Act. Sec-54---Mere agreement
to sell would not confer any right,
title or ownership in as much as any
transaction of sale in respect of
immovable property worth Rs. 100/-
or upwards was required to be
compulsorily registered---suit on the
basis of the title therefore, was not
maintainable.
Such plaintiff having no right to
property within meaning of sec. 42
Specific Relief Act 1877---plaintiff,
therefore, had no locus standie to
seek negative declaration in respect
of right, title and ownership of
property.
O-7, R-11, C.P.C.----In such plaint
of suit showing no cause of action
plaint was not triable and was liable
to rejection on such ground alone.

11. NLR 1994 U.C. 154 (c) O-VIII, R-1---Plead taken in written
statement are not evidence by
themselves. These pleas have to be
proved by evidence.

12. PLD 1973 S.C. 160 at Evidence Act Sec. 67, 47 and 145
164 (e) C.P.C. O-VIII R-4---Documents
which are not copies of judicial
record, should not be received in
 evidence without proof of signatures
and handwritings of persons alleged
to have signed or written them, even
if such documents are brought on
record and exhibited without
objection.

13. PLD 1976 Kar. 142. Evidence Act-Sec-21, 74 and 145

Previous statement of a person is not
admissible without confrontation---
deposition, if, however, admitted by
the person making it in another
case---admission presumed to be
correct and as such could be proved
by certified copy without
necessitating calling in of witness to
prove it.

14. 1990 CLC 26 (b) Plaintiff has to succeed on the

strength of his own case and not in
the weakness in the case of
defendant.

15. 1993 PSC 1412 Held---same as above.

16. NLR 1996 Clj 417. Sec-35-A---C.P.C.---Sec-35-A

Limit of Rs. 25,000/- as
compensatory cost needs to be
substantially raised as maximum
amount of Rs. 25,000/- as cost
would not be adequate to
compensate a litigant who has been
subjected to false, frivolous and
vexatious litigation.

Submitted by: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
124-District Courts,Multan.
 Counsel for the defendant
In the Court of Mr. Muhammad Amir Munir,
Civil Judge, Multan.

Mst. Haleema Begum Vs. Dilbar Hassan & another

Suit for Pre-emption.

Application U/s 151 C.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the applicant/plaintiff filed the above captioned suit,
which was pending in this Hon’ble Court, in which date of
hearing was fixed as 12.2.2001 for recording plaintiff’s
evidence.
2. That the applicant/plaintiff did not produce any evidence, but
instead made a statement, of course under a compromise, to
withdraw her suit and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
3. That no time of this Hon’ble Court has been consumed in
recording evidence or hearing arguments and as such the
applicant/plaintiff is entitled to the grant of certificate by this
court for the refund of court fee under section 13 of the Court
fee Act, 1870, read with sec-151 C.P.C. Reliance is placed
upon PLD 1993 S.C. Page 76, wherein it is held, “The aim of
the State is to make justice available to its citizens without
placing undue burden on them.”
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that
certificate for the refund of Rs. 2,400/- Court fee
affixed by the applicant on her plaint may kindly be
granted.
Affidavit attached.
Humble Applicant/plaintiff
Dated: __________
(Mst. Haleema Begum)

Through: -
Zafar Iqbal Khan,
Advocate High Court,
 124-District Courts,Multan.
In the Court of Mr. Muhammad Amir Munir,
Civil Judge, Multan.

Mst. Haleema Begum Vs. Dilbar Hassan & another

Suit for Pre-emption.

Application U/s 151 C.P.C.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Mst. Haleema Begum wife of Mirza Muhammad
Shareef, caste Mughal, R/o Mohallah Islam Nagar,
Vehari Road, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-titled application are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of March 2001 that the contents of this affidavit
are true & correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
 DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF MR. MUHAMMAD AAMIR MUNIR,

CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.

CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE COURT FEE

ACT VII OF 1870 FOR THE REFUND OF COURT FEE.

PRE-EMPTION SUIT.

Mst. Haleema Begum wife of Mirza Muhammad Sharif, caste

Mughal, R/o Mohallah Islam Nagar, Vehari Road, Mutlan.
…….Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Dilbar Hassan S/o Zameer Ullah, caste Rajput Panwar, R/o
Mouza Jalal Abad, Tehsil & District Multan.
2. Mirza Muhammad Basheer S/o Islam-ud-Din caste Mughal, R/o
Mouza Bhaini, Mohallah Islam Nagar, Vehari Road, Multan.
…….Defendants

Mst. Haleema Begum, plaintiff/petitioner moved

an application for the refund of court fee on 13.3.2001
with the contention that the suit titled as above was
pending in the court. The suit was at the initial stage. It
is contended that case was withdrawn as the result of
compromise. As per decision of higher courts, she is
entitled to get back the court fee, which was of the
value of Rs. 2,400/-
Certificate granted under section 13 of the Court Fee Act 1870.
Amount of court fee ordered to be refunded to the applicant
amounting to Rs. 2,400/- (two thousand four hundred only) vide
order dated 21.3.2001 passed by this court.
Civil Judge, Multan.
Dated: 27.3.2001