Tajjammul H. Lodhi Associates

Tajjammul H. Lodhi Associates Tajjammul H. Lodhi Associates provides law services in business law, Criminal Law, Trademark, fam

The legal framework governing such a claim. particularly for a suit seeking a declaration and a request forConsequential...
04/10/2025

The legal framework governing such a claim. particularly for a suit seeking a declaration and a request for
Consequential relief-such as possession-falls under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
According to this Article, the limitation period for the suit begins when the right to sue accrues. The determination of when this right arises in a declaratory suit hinges significantly on the specifics of each case. It is important to understand that a declaratory suit that seeks to establish title to a particular property represents a subsisting right. The right to institute such a suit is a continuing right, remaining intact as long as the claimant (plaintiff) possesses rights to the disputed property. The pivotal point at which the right to sue accrues arises when the opposing party denies or challenges the specific rights associated with the property in question or at least exerts an unequivocal threat to infringe that right. However, in situations characterised by successive acts of denial, a new cause of action arises each time there is a significant challenge to the claimant's (plaintiff's) rights. In the context of the present case, it is evident that the cause of action for the appellant emerged initially due to the respondents' attempts to disrupt.
2025 SCMR 955

04/10/2025

the appellant challenged the mutation on the grounds of knowledge of the transaction three years before the time she approached the Collector for annulment of the mutation, her case fell under the Istipulations of Article 95 of the Limitation Act of 1908, and as such, the suit was barred by time. This view was flawed. This Article allows for three years from when the fraud becomes known to the party wronged. The fraud referenced in this legal provision pertains specifically to deceptive actions perpetrated against a party directly involved in the transaction in question.
To put it another way, this Article applies only to cases where a party has been, by means of fraud, induced to enter into some transaction, execute some deed, or do some other act, and desires to be relieved from the consequences of such act. As it stands, the appellant did not participate in the fraudulent transaction that led to mutation No. 914. She was absent, and someone had impersonated her before the revenue officer to get the mutation approved, thereby keeping the appellant out of possession. Since the appellant was not a party to the mutation, she was not bound by it. The mutation, as stated above, does not confer title in favour of any party but constitutes merely an official record for fiscal purposes. As such, its illegal approval by the revenue officer had no bearing on the appellant's title and could be treated as a
nullity. Given the situation, Article 95 was inapplicable to her case. 2025 SOME 955

Note alert please be aware 🙏🏻
24/08/2025

Note alert please be aware 🙏🏻

04/08/2025

✨

04/08/2025

--If medical treatment either maintenance, then no husband would take either his wife or for a wife or minor does not fall within the definition of children for medical treatment and those dependents (under the law) would then be deprived of such maintenance allowance... Maintenance in such context hasa wide definition and is inclusive of every possible action for the wellbeing of children and wife, but within means---Medical treatment cannot be scrapped from definition of maintenance and cannot be disregarded as one of the components to be considered as part of maintenance---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court--
PLD 2025 SC 367

04/08/2025

----Eye-witness, evidence of---Evidence disbelieved to the extent of co-accused persons---Effect---If eye-witnesses are disbelieved against some accused persons who were attributed effective roles, then same eye-witnesses cannot be believed against another accused person attributed a similar role unless such eye-witnesses receive independent corroboration regarding the other accused

PLD 2025 SC 383

Address

Suit No#109, 1st Floor Al Fatima Chamber. Near Passport Office, Saddar. Karachi
Karachi
75400

Opening Hours

Monday 02:00 - 06:00

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Tajjammul H. Lodhi Associates posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Tajjammul H. Lodhi Associates:

Shortcuts

Share

Category