2023 CLC 252
It is a settled rule that if the owner of a property, despite knowledge of transactions, did not challenge the transaction in their lifetime for years, the legal heirs shall have no locus standi to challenge the validity of those transactions after the demise of the owner.
It is a settled rule that if the owner of a property, despite knowledge of transactions, did not challenge the transaction in their lifetime for years, the legal heirs shall have no locus standi to challenge the validity of those transactions after the demise of the owner.
It is clear that Mst. Safia Latif had sold the property in dispute during her lifetime, number of alienations took place thereafter which she never challenged despite having knowledge of the transactions which leads to no other conclusion except that she was fully conscious that the property was lawfully sold by her in favour of Mst. Bashiran Bibi who subsequently lawfully sold it in favour of other buyers thereafter. The deceased having not challenged the transactions and the documents despite knowledge during her lifetime, the appellant as an heir did not have any locus standi to file a suit to challenge the transaction of the deceased after her demise in view of the settled law and that the suit having been instituted after 23 years was time-barred and that the yarn spun by the appellant to lay an explanation for the late institution of suit was proved to be false. The trial court did analyze the entire evidence in its proper perspective and thereafter concluded that the suit instituted by the appellant was liable to be dismissed. Findings so recorded do not suffer from any misreading and nonreading of evidence or from any error of law or jurisdiction so as to warrant interference.
It is a settled law that when the document creates an interest in the property in presenti it requires compulsory registration.
2023 CLC 252
If the defendant filed a written statement but chose to remain absent from the court and failed to step in the witness-box, such non-appearance will be strong basis to discard the truth of the case.
It is a settled rule that pleadings of the parties are not substitute of evidence and that the averments made in the pleadings would carry no weight unless proved through evidence in court or admitted by the other side and that written statement filed by a defendant who was not later examined in the case could not be utilized nor any admission therein could be taken into the consideration unless proved through evidence.
0 Comments