Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 & Art. 120---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11---Suit for declaration---Limitation---Sale mutation---Proof of---Contention of plaintiff was that impugned mutation was based on fraud and misrepresentation---Suit was dismissed concurrently---Validity---Plaintiff had challenged impugned mutation after lapse of more than thirty four years---Declaratory suit could be filed within a period of six years---Defendants were in possession of the suit property since the impugned mutation---Suit was barred by time, in circumstances---If suit was filed beyond the period of limitation then each day's delay had to be explained---No explanation had been given in the present suit by the plaintiff---Plaintiff had neither specified the date when she came to know with regard to impugned mutation nor any explanation had been given to justify her contention---Mutation entries were made on behalf of predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff who had died---Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff had not filed any suit to challenge the impugned mutation in his life time---Plaintiff had filed present suit after the death of her predecessor-in-interest and no fraud had been committed by the defendants---Court was to decide the question of limitation first and thereafter proceed to decide the matter on merits---Suit barred by time was to be dismissed even if nobody had raised question of limitation---If proceedings brought before the Court were barred by time, Court could not assume jurisdiction and had no jurisdiction in the matter unless delay was condoned---Disposal of suit on merits alone was not sufficient for a presumption that delay had been condoned---Suit/ plaint should be rejected forthwith even without resorting to the evidence or framing of any issue if same was barred by limitation---Nothing was on record that impugned mutation was collusive and fictitious---No illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned s and decrees passed by the Courts below---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v.…

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