Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 120(1),120(1A),122(5A),177,177(1),177(2) ,214,214C

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 25,72B

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts.79,100---Sindh Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss. 42, 52---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9---Sale deed, genuineness of---Alleged mortgaged deed, proof of---Petitioners filed Suit for declaration, cancellation of mutation entry and injunction, claiming the cause of action as the respondents made an attempt to takeover the possession alleging themselves owners and that some mutation had been recorded in their favour---Respondents after filing written statement in petitioners suit, filed separate suit for cancellation, possession and mesne profits claiming that the cause of action was firstly accrued when suit land was forcibly occupied by the grand-father of the applicants 10 years back on account of mortgage of the same by the father of the respondents; secondly on refusal to accept payment of the mortgage amount; and finally, when petitioners filed civil suit on basis of allegedly forged sale deed---Both the suits were consolidated by Trial Court at early stage---Respondents case was concurrently decreed and that of petitioners was concurrently dismissed---Petitioners contended that insofar as the respondents suit was concerned, issue of limitation ought to have been decided as a specific objection was raised to the effect that the suit was filed after 48 years of execution of the sale deed, which remained unchallenged throughout; that the respondents in order to overcome such objection of limitation had raised a plea that purportedly some mortgage was created in favour of the petitioner, but again no such issue was decided; that the applicants were in possession of a registered sale deed duly executed by the grand-father of the respondents in favour of the grandfather of the Petitioners; that they took advantage of Revenue Authorities failure to record the sale of the property in question in the revenue records and got foti khata badal in their names; that petitioners had always been in possession; and that respondents filed their suit only after the summons were issued in the petitioner suit---Respondents contended that the sale deed in question was never produced in original; that no attesting witnesses…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492