Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 1488 2005 SLD 1488 2005 SCMR 1832
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1455 of 2004, decision dated: 16-08-2004
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI AND TASSADDUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MEHRBAN and 3 others

VS

. Mst. SAHIB JAN

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117 & 120---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Declaration of title---Limitation---Mutation, attestation of---Proof of---Onus to prove---Suit property was inherited property and plaintiff disputed the attestation of mutation in favour of defendants who were her brothers---Assertion of plaintiff was that she had not relinquished her right in the suit property and mutation attested in favour of defendants was fraudulently made---Trial Court dismissed suit but Appellate Court allowed the appeal and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff---Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court were maintained by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction---Plea raised by defendants was that suit was barred by limitation---Validity---Disputed property was inherited property and the burden of proving the genuineness of the transaction was on the defendants who pleaded extinguishment of right of the plaintiff in the property---Defendants, except placing reliance on the disputed mutation, had not been able to bring on record any satisfactory and convincing evidence to discharge the heavy burden---Question of limitation would not be of much significance in such a case of fake transactions defeating the right of inheritance---Plaintiff in her statement had stated that the mutation was the result of fraud and misrepresentation and she came to know about the attestation of mutation only three years before filing of the suit---Defendants were not able to bring on record any independent evidence in rebuttal showing that the plaintiff had the knowledge of transaction since the attestation of mutation and she knowingly kept silent, and therefore, she was estopped by her words and conduct to challenge the mutation at the belated stage---Appellate Court and High Court had rightly treated the suit within time as the limitation would start from the date of knowledge of transaction and not from the date of mutation---Supreme Court declined to interfere with the and decree passed by High Court---Leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others Civil Petition…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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