| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3163 = 1981 SLD 3163 = 1981 PLD 165 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1975, decided on 11th February, 1981. (On appeal from judgment dated 6-5-1974 of the Lahore High Court in R. S. A. No. 165 of 1974).
Presented By: Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
Orr and others v. Sundra Pandia I L R 17 Mad. 255; Gopal Bhaurao Jape v. Shree Jagannath Pandit Wasudeorao Pandit Maharaj I L R 59 Bom. 502; Deodhari Pandey v. Dayanand Pandey 35 1 C 610 and Hargovandas Lakhmidas and others v. Bajibhai Jijibhai and others I L R 14 Bom. 222 ref. Talib Hussain Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
Respondent : Ex parte.
Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1975, decided on 11th February, 1981. (On appeal from judgment dated 6-5-1974 of the Lahore High Court in R. S. A. No. 165 of 1974).
Presented By: Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
Orr and others v. Sundra Pandia I L R 17 Mad. 255; Gopal Bhaurao Jape v. Shree Jagannath Pandit Wasudeorao Pandit Maharaj I L R 59 Bom. 502; Deodhari Pandey v. Dayanand Pandey 35 1 C 610 and Hargovandas Lakhmidas and others v. Bajibhai Jijibhai and others I L R 14 Bom. 222 ref. Talib Hussain Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
Respondent : Ex parte.
Mst. IZZAT-.Appellant
VERSUS
ALLAH DITTA-Respondent
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 91, 95, 120
Law: Contract, Act, 1872
Section: 19
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) Link 1 Arts. 91 & 95-Ancillary relief-Limitation-Person in possession of land filing suit, seeking declaration as to mutation in regard of land and registered deed being void and ineffective only as ancillary relief, main relief claimed being with regard to protection of her possession by issuance of permanent injunction-Bar of Arts. 91 & 95, held, not attracted to case. Hamida Begum v. Murad Begum P L D 1975 S C 624 ref. (b) Contract Act (IZ of 1872) Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 S. 19-Agreement-Coercion, fraud, misrepresentation-Defendant making plaintiff believe to have executed a power of attorney but in reality preparing a sale deed by practising fraud upon plaintiff, his own wife-Section 19, Contract Act, 1872, held, not applicable to case and appellant not bound to seek cancellation of alleged sale-?deed prior to seeking protection of her possession in form of injunction against defendant-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 39 & 54.?[Fraud]. Sri Kishan Lal v. Kashmiro A I R 1916 P C 172; Shamrhad Ali Shah v. Hassan Shah P L D 1964 S C 143; Indian Contract Act by Pollock and Mulla; Foster v. Mackinnon (1869) L R 4 C P 704 and Thorough good's case 2 Co. Rep. 9(b) ref. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1"8) Link 5 Art. 120--Declaration-Ancillary relief-Limitation-Essential relief claimed: maintenance of possession and issuance of injunction for such purpose-Date of accrual of cause of action-Not necessarily relatable to date of deed allegedly obtained by misrepresentation nor to knowledge of plaintiff with regard to fraud played upon her-Plaintiff in actual possession of land but defendant getting land mutated in revenue papers in his favour and notwithstanding appellant's disclaimer of respondent's right in land and warning him against any interference regarding suit land insisting upon denying appellant's right, plaintiff, in circumstances, held, not bound to seek cancellation of deed through suit and could wait till threat to her possession became not only visible but more real-Right to seek relief against defendant, held further, accrued to plaintiff at such stage and starting point of limitation remained…