| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 2330 2012 SLD 2330 2012 YLR 161 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 1342 of 2004, decided on 19th September, 2011
NISAR HUSSAIN KHAN, J
M. Tariq Javed for Petitioners.
Respondents placed ex party
Civil Revision No. 1342 of 2004, decided on 19th September, 2011
NISAR HUSSAIN KHAN, J
M. Tariq Javed for Petitioners.
Respondents placed ex party
MUHAMMAD MALIK AFZAL and others
VS
MOHD NOOR through L.Rs.
Law:
Section:
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S.18 & Art. 44---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(e)---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration---Transfer of minors' property with their forged signatures and thumb-impressions on mutation attested on 13-6-1974 in favour of defendant---Suit challenging mutation filed on 11-12-1993 dismissed by Trial Court for being time-barred---Dismissal of plaintiffs' appeal by Appellate Court---Validity---According to National Identity Cards, Birth Certificates and School Certificates of plaintiffs produced in evidence, they were of age of 11 & 13 years at time of attestation of suit mutation---Entries of National Identity Card would carry presumption of truth---Defendant had neither contradicted nor put a single suggestion to plaintiffs in cross-examination with regard to their statements on the point of minority--- Defendant's witness during cross-examination had admitted minority of plaintiffs at time of attestation of suit mutation---Minor could not enter into an agreement or transaction due to his minority, thus, any transaction made by him would be void ab initio, which if brought to notice of court, would be liable to be struck down---Question of limitation would not arise in case of setting aside a void order for having no legal worth in eye of law---Impugned mutation was void ab initio for having been fraudulently entered and attested on behalf of minors during their minority---Transaction alleged and proved to be based on fraud would come within ambit of S. 8 of Limitation Act, 1908, whereunder period of limitation for its setting aside would run from time when fraud first became known to person injuriously affected thereby---Suit property had not been transferred by guardian of plaintiffs, thus, courts below had wrongly applied Art. 44 of Limitation Act, 1908 to non-suit the plaintiffs---Suit was within time---High Court set aside impugned s/ decrees and decreed suit as prayed for. Malik Muhammad Faisal and another v. State Life Insurance Corporation through Chairman and 2 others 2008 SCMR 456; Ahmad Khan v. Rasul Shah and others PLD 1975 SC 311; Ahmad…
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