In the pre31 pre-discrimination case for the claimant / seller, it claimed that the sale was applied in its favor in 1998, when it paid a large sum. And then the sale consideration was completed in 2005 through installments. The sale was subsequently executed in his favor in 2005, and Wendy further claimed that since the possession of the property in the suit was entrusted to him in 2002, the plaintiff / professional king's The lawsuit was filed in 2006 and was responsible for the case. The defendant's full evidence in relation to the method of providing physical possession of the suit property on the basis of the suit and the suit dismissed on this basis was silent The plaintiff substantiated the actual date of delivery of the suit property possession on it. Was bound to do. , But there was a lack of evidence that the record relating to the delivery of the physical possession to the suit property was not brought to a specific date and mood, which was only dead or the claim in question, under the provisions of section 31 Not enough. Running will begin after the date of registration of the cell deed. Confirmation of the change; delivery of physical possession of the suit property; and in the absence of all three such methods, will be commenced on the date of knowledge by the preporter under section 31 (d) of the KP Pre-Impression Act 1987, The applicant / shopkeeper failed to prove the actual day of physical possession. With regard to the property, the claim by the plaintiff to the extent of his knowledge was within time and not time bound. The same was decided by the following trial court and the Court of Appeal simultaneously.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
