Mst. RABIA GULA vs MUHAMMAD JANAN S — 2022 SCMR 1009 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. RABIA GULA VS MUHAMMAD JANAN S. 18 & First Sched., art. 120---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 42---Gift mutation---Suit for declaration challenging a gift mutation on grounds of fraud---Limitation period, commencement of---Scope---Date of knowledge of donor and not of his legal heir as the starting point for computing period of limitation---In the present case, bar of limitation applied to the challenge made by the respondent to the gift mutation of 1977 after a period of 32 years---Respondent was claiming his right over the suit property based on his inheritance from the estate of his father, and challenged the gift mutation, essentially on the ground that the same was the result of fraud, and asserted that he gained knowledge thereof some days before the institution of the suit---However, neither in the plaint nor in the evidence, did the respondent assert that his father, the purported donor, who remained alive for about 23 years after sanction of the gift mutation, was not aware of the gift mutation and thus could not challenge the same during his lifetime---Such omission on the part of the respondent, was crucial and in fact, defeated the very legal basis upon which he could have saved his claim from the bar of limitation---In the present case, the "person injuriously affected" by the alleged fraud (if it were committed) in getting the gift mutation sanctioned was the respondent's father(the purported donor)---Respondent derived his right to institute the suit to challenge the gift mutation from his father, being his legal heir, therefore, it was the date of the knowledge of his father, not of the respondent that was the starting point for computing the limitation period of six years provided in article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation act, 1908 - the residuary article applicable to suits instituted, under section 42 of the Specific Relief act 1877 for declaration of any right as to any property---Furthermore the respondent (plaintiff) did not assert in the plaint that the appellants (defendants), by means of fraud, kept, his father (the person injuriously affected) from the knowledge of his right to institute the suit to challenge the gift mutation, during his life, nor did he give the particulars thereof---Respondent (plaintiff) did not assert any such fraud of the appellants even against himself, and give any date of his attaining knowledge of such fraud and his right to institute the suit---Therefore, the benefit of section 18 of the Limitation act, 1908 for computing the limitation period for instituting the suit to challenge the gift mutation could not be extended to the respondent (plaintiff)---appeal was partially allowed. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1009 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. RABIA GULA VS MUHAMMAD JANAN Proof---"Reasonable" and "natural gift"---In the present case the gift transaction recorded in the impugned gift mutation appeared to be reasonable and natural in the facts and circumstances of the case; where a father (donor), whose son had contracted a second marriage, transferred some of his property to his first daughter-in-law (donee), who also happened to be his niece, and to his granddaughters (donees) to ensure their financial security, out of his love and affection for them---Impugned gift mutation was held to be valid---Appeal was partially allowed. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1009 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. RABIA GULA VS MUHAMMAD JANAN First Sched. art. 120---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 42---Right to sue--- Limitation period, commencement of--- Principles for ascertaining when the right to sue accrues to a donor or owner of property, to seek a declaration of his ownership right over the property stated. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1009 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. RABIA GULA VS MUHAMMAD JANAN S. 54---agreement to sell and sale mutation---Genuineness and validity---Purported vendee was unable to prove the essential ingredients of the sale transaction and the due sanction of the sale mutation that recorded it---Record showed that there were inconsistencies and clear contradictions in the testimony of the purported vendee's two witnesses on material particulars of the sale transaction and of the sale mutation recording the same in the revenue record---No independent witnesses, in particular, the patwari who entered, and the revenue officer who sanctioned the sale mutation were examined in evidence---In fact, no cogent, reliable evidence was produced by the purported vendee to prove payment of the sale-consideration, the most essential ingredient of a valid sale, to the purported vendor---High Court had rightly found the alleged sale and sale mutation as invalid---appeal was partially allowed. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1009 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. RABIA GULA VS MUHAMMAD JANAN Ss. 2(8), 9 & 18---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R. 4---Fraud---Right to sue---Limitation period, commencement of---Principles relating to commencement of limitation period where a person(or his legal heir)claim to be deprived of the knowledge of his right to sue based on the fraud of the other party stated. Head NotesCase Description

Mst. RABIA GULA vs MUHAMMAD JANAN S — 2022 SCMR 1009 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR