| Case ID |
322fef53-c1ec-42a5-84ad-083be66f2885 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeals Nos. 61 and 67 of 2007 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 27, 2013 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeals were filed regarding the same disputed land, and the controversy lies between the same parties. The Court held that the plaintiff, Baroo, had filed the suit for cancellation of a registered gift deed and declaration of its mutation as null and void. However, the suit was dismissed as time-barred, being filed nearly ten years after the execution of the gift deed. The Court emphasized that a suit must be filed within three years from the execution of the deed, and the plaintiff failed to justify the delay. The subsequent suit filed by Muhammad Bashir and others was also dismissed for being not maintainable under Order II, Rule 2 of C.P.C. The appeals were accepted, and the previous judgments were upheld, reinforcing the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation periods in civil proceedings. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around a dispute concerning a gift deed executed on December 7, 1993, by Baroo in favor of his sons and Muhammad Khursheed. The controversy arose when Baroo filed a suit in 2003 to cancel the gift deed, claiming it was fraudulently executed. The High Court ruled that Baroo's claim was time-barred as it was filed beyond the three-year limitation period stipulated by law. The Court also addressed the principle of maintainability of a second suit on the same cause of action, confirming that such actions are impermissible under the Civil Procedure Code. This case highlights the significance of timely legal action and the implications of limitation laws in civil disputes. The ruling is essential for legal practitioners and parties involved in similar disputes, reinforcing the need to act promptly within the legal frameworks set by the Specific Relief and Limitation Acts. Keywords: gift deed, limitation period, civil appeals, fraud in execution, legal action, maintainability, High Court ruling. |
| Court |
High Court (AJ&K)
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Rafiullah Sultani,
Mehmood Akhtar Qureshi
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD KHURSHEED AND others
|
| Respondents |
BAROO AND others
|
| Citations |
2013 SLD 2970,
2013 PLD 1
|
| Other Citations |
2012 MLD 86,
2002 MLD 507,
1999 MLD 236,
1999 CLC 1755,
1999 CLC 130,
1992 CLC 1854,
PLD 1985 SC 153,
1998 SCR 204,
1995 CLC 130
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877),
Limitation Act (IX of 1908),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
39,
42,
91,
O. II, R.2
|