Mst FATEH BIBI vs MUHAMMAD SAEED and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an appellate court decree in a property dispute. The petitioner, Mst. Fateh Bibi, had challenged a 1976 sale deed and subsequent mutation regarding inherited land, alleging fraud, forgery, and lack of consideration, fifteen and a half years after the transaction. The core legal questions were whether the sale transaction was genuine and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the transaction was valid and devoid of fraud, noting that the petitioner's mother was a vendee and her brother was a marginal witness to the deed. The Court held that the long delay of over fifteen years in challenging the transaction was fatal to the suit, rendering it hopelessly time-barred. The principle laid down is that a significant, unexplained delay in challenging a registered sale transaction, particularly when family members are involved in the execution, creates a strong presumption of validity and renders a subsequent suit for cancellation time-barred.
- Does a delay of over fifteen years in challenging a registered sale deed render a civil suit time-barred?
- Can a sale transaction be considered fraudulent when the vendor's close family members, including a mother and brother, are involved as vendees and witnesses?
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.---Mst. Fateh Bibi seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 20-4-1999 of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court whereby Civil Revision No,3022-D of 1996 filed by Muhammad Saeed etc. Was accepted and the judgment and decree, dated 24-11-1996 of learned Additional District Judge, Samundri was set aside.
2. The land in dispute measuring 9 Kanals 5 Marlas was inherited by the plaintiff Mst. Fateh Bibi from her father Baig. She sold the same through registered sale-deed, dated 19-1-1976 Exh.D.3 to Noora, Mamoora and her real mother Mst. Fatima Bibi in equal share for a sum of Rs,20,000. A sale Mutation No,382 was attested on the basis thereof on 8-3-1976.
3. On 17-11-1991 after more than 15-1/2 years Mst. Fateh Bibi challenged the aforesaid sale as well as the mutation through a civil suit on grounds of fraud, forgery and without consideration. After a contest between the contesting parties the learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 12-11-1995 dismissed the suit but the same, on appeal, was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, Samundri on 24-11-1996. The same was set aside through the impugned judgment, dated 20-4- 1999 by the learned High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction.
4. The learned High Court in its lengthy and elaborate discussion under para-10 of the impugned judgment has properly discussed the evidence of the parties as well as the attending circumstances of the case and has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner lady had in fact sold the suit property for consideration and that no fraud or misrepresentation had at all taken place. That her own brothers were available in the transaction along with her husband and that one of the vendees is her own real mother who happened to be the purchaser of 1/3 share. That if any fraud was intended to be committed, the mother should not at all have been shown as a vendee and Muhammad Mansha, the rea1 brother of the plaintiff should not have been shown as a marginal witness to the sale deed. Her silence for more than 15-1/2 years was again considered fatal to the suit for two-fold reasons, firstly, that suit was hopelessly barred by time and secondly, that had she not entered into valid transaction, she would not have slept over the matter for such a long period. The High Court as well as the trial Court has rightly appreciated material on the record.
Learned counsel for the respondents further added that the transaction was genuine because almost the entire family had positively and knowingly sold the property to the respondents through different transactions, one of them was that of Mansha and Mustafa through a separate deed; Mansha and Mustafa being the brothers of the petitioner.
5. After having minutely gone through the evidence as well as record, we are of the view that the petitioner had rightly entered, into a genuine transaction and the present suit was hopelessly barred by time. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.