Time limit doesn't apply if fraud committed in suit for declaration: SC.

ISLAMABAD -- In a judgement pertaining to property rights, the Supreme Court has held that the six-year time limit for instituting a suit for declaration could not be waived if the declaration was 'an open act'.

According to a judgement written by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, deliberate concealment of facts intended to prevent discovery of the right to sue is a 'fraud' under the Limitation Act 1908, but an open act of a party cannot be said to be a fraudulent act of concealment.

The court held that in case of concealment, under Article 120 of Schedule I to the Limitation Act 1908, the six-year period should be computed from the time when the fraud of the brothers first became known to the sisters, whose heirs filed the petition.

The dispute arose after the death of Isa Khan, the owner of agricultural land measuring a little more 19-kanal. He died and his inheritance mutation ('inteqal') No. 327 was sanctioned on March 23, 1935, in favour of his son Abdur Rehman, who later received compensation in 1960-61 when some portion of the property was acquired by the Small Industries Corporation of West Pakistan.

When Abdur Rehman died, his sons, daughters and his widow inherited the remaining property and sold out almost all of it. In 2004, petitioner Saqadat Khan instituted a suit on Nov 19, praying for a declaration that inheritance mutation No. 327 sanctioned on March 23, 1935, in favour of Abdur Rehman and the subsequent inheritance mutation in favour of respondents No. 1 to 6 were void and ineffective against their rights.

They asserted that Isa Khan had left one son, Abdur Rehman, and two daughters, Ms Mehro and Ms Afsro, as his legal heirs but Abdur Rehman fraudulently got sanctioned inheritance mutation in his favour, excluding his sisters from the inheritance of their father. The sisters also died but being legal heirs of Ms Mehro and Ms Afsro, they also have the right to the property.

The Supreme Court said the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act was not available against any person who was a transferee in good faith and for a valuable consideration. That is why the SupArAeAAme Court has treated differently the two types of cases: (i) where the joint property is still in possession of the defrauding brothers or...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT