Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 142,144

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 43

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XLI,R.33

Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)

Section: 42

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Arts.142 & 144---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.42s were alleged to have secured proprietary rights of the disputed land fraudulently in collusion with officers of the Revenue Department being refugee from Jammu and Kashmir had been allotted land temporarily in the year 1956 and later he joined the Armys took undue benefit ofrespondent's absence and got mutation sanctioned in their favour in the year 1984 and further alienated the disputed land to other vendees's suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, whereafter appeal preferred against said was also dismissed by the Appellate Court---Contention of the petitioners was that the suit was time-barred as the suit for possession should have been filed within 12 years but the suit brought by the respondent was belated stated that he came to know of the removal of his name from the proposal of allotment in the year 1998 when he approached the General Headquarters and thereafter he filed suit without wasting further time--Held, limitation where fraud was alleged, would run from the date of knowledge and not from the date when the fraud was committed and entries were got changed---Suit was within time. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 43---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.33---Bona fide vendee--Respondent, who purchased disputed land subject to alleged fraud argued that he was bona fide vendee and his rights were protected under S.43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the error cropped up night be corrected by High Court under O. XLI, R.33, C.P.C. and he being bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any previous transaction purchased the land from the recorded owner---Matter was under encumbrances of the prohibitory order in civil court and respondent purchased a portion of disputed land during the pendency of lis---Held, respondent, who had been hit by original owner due to alleged fraud should file a suit not only for return of the paid amount but also other expenses and compensation except the respondent in whose favour concurrent findings of fact had been recorded---Both Trial Court and the Appellate Court had…

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