MRDUMAN-E-MALLE ZAI NIDA KAHOL THROUGH HAJI SALEH MUHAMMAD versus MARDUMAN-E-KILLI KHUDAI-E-RAHIM SADEZAI (SHAI)
Articles 42 and 8 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts 120 and 142 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O VII, R3 suit in which the declaration and the limitation of the occupation suit were to be sought in addition to the declaration. Must be entered within. Twelve years after the date of the breach, the plaintiff was bound to prove his first possession and then settle within 12 years, but in the present case, he failed to do so in the suit / appeal / plea or proceedings of the defendants. The source was blocked. Beyond the limit, it should be rejected regardless of the fact that the threshold was not accepted as a defense because the unqualified case should be buried at its inception, the claim of the defendants passed in the previous case. The boundaries of the disputed property were not mentioned in such a decision. The fact is that the real estate was the one that has now become the subject of the parties. Illegal or not, and the defendants were in possession, the plaintiff was obliged to reveal his first possession and give the date of his settlement, but he failed. The evidence available on the record was contrary and contradicted by the statement filed by the plaintiff. Did not have property limits. Nor was the number of any surveys mentioned, the statements of the witnesses presented by the defendants were different, conflicting and contradictory; the period of possession of the land by the competing trial court left no option but to dismiss the case. Was. , Read or misidentification of records was available; no illegal or inadvertent identification could be identified by the defendants.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2014
