ABDUL HUSSAIN Vs. AMIR UDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit was filed being title suit No. 42 of 1993 by one Aftabuddin through her constituted Attorney Md. Afazuddin. The suit was for a declaration that a deed of sale dated 7.5.74 in favour of the defendants registered on 14.5.74 before the Sub-Registrar, Bhangarpar, District-Cachar is a fraudulent deed and it was not executed by the pdaintiff. The plaintiff, a Bagladeshi citizen had some property in India and in Paragraph-4 and 5 of the plaint it is stated as follows:-

(2.) So it is the definite case of the plaintiff that she had the knowledge about the forgery only on 16.11.87 when she came to India by taking Visa and the suit was filed through the constituted Attorney on 19.9.88. Article 59 of the Limitation Act provides a period of 3 years to cancel or set aside instrument or decree and the time begins to run when the tfacts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled has become known to plaintiff. It is the finding of facts of the lower Appellate Court, inter-alia as follows :-

(3.) The learned Munsiff in his Judgment in title suit No. 91 of 1988 found that Exhibit -3 was not executed by Aftabjan Bibi. It was a fraudulent deed. The plaintiff came to know of the deed of sale only in the year 1987 and in view of that it was held that the suit is not barred by limitation. So the first contention of Shri Lahiri, learned Advocate for the appellant that the suit is barred by limitation has no legs to stand upon in view of the concurrent finding of the courts below.