Direct Evidence is better than expert evidence

Direct Evidence is better than expert Evidence

Article 59  of Qanoun-e-Shahahdat (X of 1984) proof of a fact— direct evidence— expert evidence—- where direct evidence to prove a fct was available then much importance had to be given to it, and expert evidence in such circumstance carried no legal value

Order 37 of CPC and Article 59 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat.. Summary suit for recovery of money ….. Pronote, authenticity of —- Proof— Evidence of witnesses of Pronote— Report of hand writing expert negating authenticity of Pronote— Importance to be given to (direct) evidence of witnesses over report of handwriting expert…………. Witnesses in whose presence the pronote was signed were subjected to lengthy cross examination but they remained consistent on the point that such pronote was executed— Report of handwriting expert on its own could not be made basis to discard the authenticity of the pronote in the presence of such strong and direct evidence…. Where direct evidence to prove a fact was available then much importance had to be given to it ….. Suit filed on basis of Pronote in question was competent…. Appeal was allowed accordingly

2015 SCMR 284

Stamps in Summary Suit

Stamp Act in Summary Suit

Order XXXVII CPC and stamp Act section 12 (Act II of 1899)

Summary suit of money.. ponote.. stamps on pronote properly cancelled… pronote containing 20 adhesive stamps out of which only 2 not cancelled/crossed…Question was as to whether such promote was admissible in evidence to file a suit under order 37 CPC…. Stamp Act 1899 was a revenue collecting law and the object of cancelling of stamps was only that the same might not be used again on any other documents….. Provision of the Stamp Act 1899 were no intended to dney vested rights of the parties and to punish the beneficiary of the pronote….. pronote would be deemed to be unstamped only to file extent of the stamps which had not been canelled… As only two stamps were not cancelled in the present case, the pronote was insufficiently stamped only to the extent of said two stamps…..such pronote could be admitted in evidence on payment of penalty provided under the law and it could not be held that suit filed under order 37 on basis of such pronote was incompetent— Appeal as allowed accordingly

2015 Supreme Court of Pakistan 284



Will would be valid to the extent of 1/3 of the property.. testator could not bequest his entire property, however he could bequest only 1/3 of his entire property with the consent of legal heirs—property could not be bequest in the favor of legal heirs without the consent of other legal heirs— scribe of will deed in the present case, was not mentioned nor had been produced by the plaintiffs— contents of will deed were against Quranic Version, Sunnah and law—Muslim could exercise his right to utilize his property as he wishes in his lifetime by alienating the same in any manner but he had no right to by-pass the dictates of Quran, Sunnah and prevailing law— Testator had no authority to deprive the legal heirs of their shari shares though will deed— statements of marginal witnesses of will deed were full of contradictions— Notary public who attested the will deed had not entered the same in his register— Legal right which had bestowed upon the heirs could not be jeopardized by executing an unregistered deed which was no in the knowledge of legal heirs— consent of other legal heirs had not been obtained while executing the will deed—said will deed has not been proved nor the same contained the description or property—Legal rights of defendants to the extent of their Shari shares could not be disturbed—Inheritance mutation attested in accordance with law was not liable to be annulled which was maintained—plaintiffs were bound to prove partition deed  by producing cogent and confidence inspiring evidence— partition deed was unregistered documents which had not been proved— Temporary arrangement of partition for the purpose of produce of land would not amount to permanent private partition or a legal partition—Both the courts below had decided the this lis with conscious and application of independent mind=== revision was dismissed in the circumstances