Section 42 and 39 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 18 and Article 91 Civil Procedure Code (VV 1908), O VII, R 11 Suit Declaration and Termination of Sale Deed Plants Agreement, Scope Trial Court Rejected Denied on the grounds of limitation, but the appellate court obtained a mere remand for judgment on the merits The plaintiff alleged that she had committed fraud and misrepresentation in the sale of her property. The suit land was not sold by the claimant because it was not owned by the claimant at the time of sale. This means that knowing and understanding the sale transaction that was done by his father's father did not have the power to sell the property and he was also a party to the fraud, a minor's property. The sale was made without the court's permission and the sale was not legal. The plaintiff had no knowledge of the sale and his case for canceling the sale contract was viable and the real estate involved and the forged sale. The claimant may have a dispute about the information about. To exclude the filing at the point of limitation shall not be excluded by the court from this consideration The appellate court correctly stated that the plaintiff's case was covered under Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908, The limits for cancellation of device sales will begin with knowledge. The trial court's fraud order was rightly rejected by the appellate court
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2015
