5. Limitation does not run against a void transaction
nor does efflux of time extinguish the right of inherence. In the
present case the petitioner has taken a specific stance that
neither she entered appearance before any revenue official/
officer for execution or attestation of mutations in dispute nor
did she receive any sale consideration nor delivered the
possession of the disputed property to the respondents/
defendants and the mutations in dispute are result of
impersonation, fraud, forgery and against law. Thus, the suit of
the petitioner/plaintiff is well within limitation after specific
denial about two months prior to institution of the suit as has
been averred in the plaint by her and even the mutation is not a
proof of title and a beneficiary thereunder has to prove the same
by leading strong, cogent and trustworthy evidence. This Court
is fortified on this view by judgments reported as Peer Baksh
through LRs and other v. Mst. Khanzadi and others (2016 SCMR 1417), Mst. Suban v. Allah Ditta and others (2007
SCMR 635) and Khalil Ahmad v. Abdul Jabbar Khan and
others (2005 SCMR 911).
Part of Judgment of
LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR
Civil Revision652-11
| 2018 LHC 667 |
0 comments:
Post a Comment