The suit litigation plaintiff for the declaration through the specific performance of sections 12 and 42 of the Litigation Act (IX of 1908), Arts 113, 147 and 148 suit, disclosed that the defendant had, in 1981, with the plaintiff on the basis of that agreement. The suit was mortgaged to the property. , 000 36, of \\ and it is alleged that the suit will remain with the defendant / mortgagee on the property and he will pay the plaintiff Rs. ? Initially, the suit property was kept in mortgage for three years, however, the period was extended, that the defendants paid Rs 36,000, but did not pay the amount of `Chakota of ? That although the defendants were in physical possession of the suit property but the plaintiff was in legal possession of the suit property, he was entitled to refund the mortgage with `Chakota 1981 from 1981 till now, trial and appeal in the case. The defendant's suit was dismissed by. The settlement agreement between the parties was written on a ten-year stamp paper and the unregistered document mortgage could not be effected through the unregistered document, especially when the agreement entered into operation in 1981. Over 100 rupees was saved in the process. Should the mortgage contract be deemed to be a suit or not for sale, Article 147 or 148 of the Limitation Act 1908 was not attracted to the specific performance of the suit agreement, as well as to Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908 Will be governed by The 3-year period was rightly found by both the courts that the defendant's case was barred by the time the plaintiff had served a long period of 19 years.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010
