Pakistan Case Law
1973 SCMR 248

FATAH UDDIN vs ZARSHAD AND Another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1973 SCMR 248
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 82-P of 1972 R. S. A. No. 85 of
Date1973-04-19
Judge(s)Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Muhammad Gul
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment in a suit for declaration, which sought to invalidate a gift deed executed in 1957. The respondent alleged the deed was obtained through fraud and undue influence by the petitioner, who posed as a Pir. Evidence indicated the respondent was a lunatic at the time of execution, and the petitioner failed to rebut claims regarding the respondent's mental state or the fraudulent nature of the transaction. The petitioner argued the suit was time-barred, calculating limitation from the date of the deed's execution. The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, the right to sue accrues upon the discovery of fraud. Since the fraud was discovered in 1969 and the suit was filed in 1970, the action was within the limitation period. The Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that the suit was timely and the evidence of fraud remained unrebutted, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • When does the limitation period for a suit challenging a gift deed on the grounds of fraud begin to run?
  • Does the right to sue for a declaration regarding a fraudulent transaction accrue from the date of execution or the date of discovery of the fraud?
  • Is a suit filed within the limitation period after the discovery of fraud maintainable despite the lapse of time since the execution of the impugned deed?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 13, Lunacy Act 1912
  • Article 120, Limitation Act 1908
limitation periodfraudundue influencegift deedmental capacityright to suedeclaration suit

1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from a judgment of 4 learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court In a second appeal which arose out of a suit for a declaration filed by the respondent No. 1 herein to have a gift deed registered on the 11th of February 1957, declared void and ineffective.

2. The said respondent alleged that the gift had been obtained from him by the petitioner posing as a Pir by fraud and undue influence. He further alleged that he came to know of the fraud on the 10th of September 1969, when the petitioner entered into an exchange transaction with regard to a part of the lands with respondent No. 2.

3. The gift deed was executed on 1-1-1957 and was registered on the 11th of February 1957, but the respondent No. 1, it appears, was admitted in Jail on 28-6-1957 under section 13 of the Lunacy Act under the orders of a Magistrate at Swabi. The evidence of the plaintiff' in the suit that he was not at the relevant time in full possession of his mental faculties was confirmed also by other witnesses who deposed to the effect that the said respondent was a lunatic in 1957.

4. The petitioner did not go in the witness-box to rebut the evidence nor did he call any rebutting evidence. In this view of the matter, the High Court took the view that the first appel--late Court bad rightly decreed the suit after setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the trial Court without consideration of all the relevant evidence.

5. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and the only point urged in support of this petition is that the High Court and the first appellate Court had to notice that the suit was barred by time, if time is calculated from the date of execution of the deed of gift.

6. This contention is, however, without any substance, as under Article 120 of the Limitation Act the time begins to run from the date the right to sue accrues and in this case the right to sue accrued from the date of discovery of the fraud which was specifically alleged to be in 1969. This evidence remained unrebutted and, therefore, the suit instituted on the 26th February 1970 was rightly held to be well within time both by the Additional District Judge, Mardan, in first appeal and the High Court in second appeal.

7. No other point is urged. ,This petition must, therefore, fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Cited by 14 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.