2021 C L C 1880
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Arts. 55, 56, 92, & 119---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3---Suit for inheritance---Relevancy of judgment of other courts---Respondents/Plaintiffs challenged two mutations of year 1908 to be consequence of fraud committed by the processor-in-interest of the petitioners/defendants against the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents---Trial Court dismissed the suit---Appellate Court allowed appeal---Validity---Held, that no reasons had been recorded by the appellate court to explain as to why entries in the record made back in 1904-05 were to be altered---Trial Court seemed to have been swayed by order of other Court for alteration of entries in mutation record of another village also sanctioned in 1908 involving the predecessors-in-interest of the same parties---To conflict with revenue record would bear the onus to rebut the presumption of correctness attached thereto through convincing evidence---Standard of proof required to establish fraud would not become less stringent merely because the alleged fraud transpired a long time back and onus could not be discharged due to non-availability of evidence and efflux of time---No evidence existed to uphold the declaration of rights---Revision petition was allowed and suit was declared as time-barred.
(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Arts. 55 & 56---Judgment/findings of another Court---Relevancy---Trial court could not use the judgment/findings of another court that did not fall within the scope of S.55 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 as a substitute for its own findings of fact backed by the evidence adduced before it---Court acting under the influence of a judgment rendered by another court in relation to a claim of the respondents' property in another village was a breach of S.56 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.
(c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---
----S.3---Suit for inheritance---Fraud, allegation of---Limitation period---Applicability---No principle of general application was laid out in the jurisprudence pursuant to which the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1908 could be held to be not applicable to a claim asserted on the basis of right to inheritance or on the basis of fraud---Party must clearly declare the date when it acquired knowledge of the false entry in mutation record or fabrication/forgery of record, the limitation period would run from such date if the party could discharge the onus to prove the emergence of cause of action on such date through evidence.
(d) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)---
----S.24A---Reasoned order---Aid to appellate/supervisory Court---Scope---One of the purposes for creating an obligation for a court to give reasons was that a superior court exercising appellate or supervisory jurisdiction would be able to appreciate the arguments backed by evidence that prevailed with the court
0 Comments