⚖️ معاہدۂ فروخت کے اجرا کا اقرار ہو تو دو تصدیقی گواہوں کی پیشی ضروری نہیں
سپریم کورٹ نے 2020 SCMR 197 میں ایک اہم مقدمے کا فیصلہ کرتے ہوئے واضح کیا کہ اگر کسی ایسی دستاویز کے اجرا کا خود اس شخص کی جانب سے اقرار کر لیا جائے جس نے اسے execute کیا ہے، تو صرف اس وجہ سے دستاویز ناقابلِ قبول نہیں ہو جاتی کہ اس کے دونوں تصدیقی گواہوں کو عدالت میں پیش نہیں کیا گیا۔
🔹 مقدمے کا پس منظر
فریقین کے درمیان 29 کنال اراضی کی فروخت کا معاہدہ ہوا۔ معاہدۂ فروخت پر دو تصدیقی گواہوں کے دستخط موجود تھے، تاہم عدالت میں ان دونوں میں سے صرف ایک گواہ پیش کیا گیا۔
دوسری جانب معاہدہ کرنے والے فریق نے معاہدے پر اپنے دستخط اور اس کے اجرا سے انکار نہیں کیا، البتہ اس کے مندرجات کے حوالے سے اعتراض اٹھایا گیا۔
⚖️ سپریم کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ قانونِ شہادت کے آرٹیکل 81 کے تحت اگر کسی attested document کے اجرا کا اقرار خود اس کے executant کی جانب سے کر دیا جائے تو اس کے اجرا کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے تصدیقی گواہوں کو پیش کرنا ضروری نہیں رہتا۔
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ آرٹیکل 81 اس عمومی اصول سے استثنا ہے جس کے تحت قانوناً تصدیق شدہ دستاویز کے اجرا کے ثبوت کے لیے تصدیقی گواہوں کی ضرورت ہوتی ہے۔
🔹 ایک گواہ پیش نہ ہونے کا اثر
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ چونکہ معاہدۂ فروخت پر دو تصدیقی گواہوں کی تصدیق موجود تھی اور اس کے اجرا کا اقرار خود executant کی جانب سے کیا گیا تھا، اس لیے دوسرے تصدیقی گواہ کو عدالت میں پیش نہ کرنا قانونی طور پر فیصلہ کن نہیں تھا۔
⚖️ پاور آف اٹارنی بھی اہم تھی
اس مقدمے میں فروخت کنندہ کی جانب سے اپنے بھائی کے حق میں رجسٹرڈ پاور آف اٹارنی بھی دی گئی تھی، جس میں فروخت اور منتقلی کے اختیارات شامل تھے۔ سپریم کورٹ نے معاہدۂ فروخت اور پاور آف اٹارنی کو مجموعی طور پر دیکھتے ہوئے نچلی عدالتوں کے نتائج میں مداخلت سے انکار کیا۔
✅ قانونی اصول
اس فیصلے سے اہم اصول یہ سامنے آتا ہے کہ اگر کسی attested document کے اجرا کا اقرار خود executant کر دے تو آرٹیکل 81 قانونِ شہادت کے تحت اس کے اجرا کے ثبوت کے لیے دونوں تصدیقی گواہوں کو پیش کرنا لازمی نہیں رہتا۔
حوالہ: 2020 SCMR 197 — Muhammad Afzal (decd.) through LRs and others v. Muhammad Bashir and another
Must read judgment.
2020 SCMR 197
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Faisal Arab and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ
MUHAMMAD AFZAL (DECD.) through I..Rs. and others---Appellants Versus
MUHAMMAD BASHIR and another---Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 528-1 of 2012, decided on 20th November, 2019.
(Against the judgment dated 17.09.2009 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in R.S.A. No. 58 of 2008)
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--
Arts. 17 & 81---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54-Admission of execution by party to attested document---Scope-Sale agreement---One of the attesting witnesses of sale agreement not produced--Inconsequential---Sale agreement had been attested by two witnesses---Omission to produce one of the said attesting witness was of no legal consequence in terms of Art. 81 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Article 81 was an exception ption to the general ru rule that where a document was required by law to be attested the same could not be used in evidence unless two attesting witnesses were called for the purposes of proving its execution---Reading of Art. 81 showed that where the execution of a document was admitted by the executant himself, the examination of attesting witnesses was not necessary-Appeal was dismissed.
Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others PLD 2011 SC 241; Mt. Hira Bibi and others v. Ram Hari Lal and others AIR 1925 Privy Council 203 and Sheik Kachu v. Muhammad Ali Mahmud AIR 1927 Calcutta 926 distinguished.
Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 20th November, 2019.
ORDER
FAISAL ARAB, J.--The case of respondent No.1 in his suit for specific performance of contract was that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell with him with regard to his property comprising of 29 kanals. In this regard the appellant No.1 executed a sale agreement on 23.01.1992 which admittedly was signed by him and on the same day a registered power of attorney was also executed in favour of his brother entrusting all the powers of sale and transfer etc. to him. At that time the property was mortgaged therefore could not be d not be transferred and when the mortgage was redeemed on 18.01.1994, the respondent No.1 filed the suit for specific performance of the contract on 30.04.1994. Both the documents were produced in evidence, however, out of the two attesting witnesses of the sale agreement only one appeared as witness. On the basis of the admission of the executant of both the documents the suit was decreed. The appeal filed by the appellants failed and so was their second appeal. Against the concurrent findings of the three courts below, leave was granted on the ground that though the execution of the sale agreement has been admitted but its contents have been denied.
-
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the requirements of Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 were not met and only one attesting witness out of two was examined. He further submits that though the execution of sale agreement is admitted but its contents were denied, therefore the sale e agreem agreement ought not to have been een allowed to be admitted in evidence and resultantly the suit ought to have been dismissed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments reported as Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others (PLD 2011 SC 241), Mt. Hira Bibi and others v. Ram Hari Lal and others (AIR 1925 Privy Council 203) and Sheik Kachu v. Muhammad Ali Mahmud (AIR 1927 Calcutta 926).
-
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as Abbas Ali v. Liaqat Ali and another (2013 SCMR 1600) wherein it has been held that the documents are required to be attested by two witnesses but where the executant admits the execution of the document, then in terms of Article 81 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, such document can be used against him though it was required by law to be attested..
-
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the sale agreement has been attested by two witnesses and the omission to produce one attesting witness is of no legal consequence in terms of Article 81 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The said Article reads as under:-
"81. Admission of execution by party to attested document.--The admission of a party to an attesting document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested."
Article 81 is an exception to the general rule that where a document is required by law to be attested the same cannot be used in evidence unless two attesting witnesses are called for the purposes of proving its execution. The simple reading of Article 81 shows that where the execution of a document is admitted by the executant himself, the examination of attesting witnesses is not necessary. The case law cited by the appellants' counsel has no application as Article 81 is attracted in this case. Furthermore, the execution of power of attorney has not been denied which also contains the power to sell. When sale agreement is considered in the light of the contents of the power of attorney, clearly both the documents depict that the sale transaction has taken place. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of three courts below. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
MWA/M-58/SC
Appeal dismissed.