' SYED SAEEDUDDIN NASIR, J.---This is an application (C.M.A. No, 8664/2014) under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Read with section 151, C.P.C. For the rejection of plaint filed by the defendant No,1, wherein certain vague and indefinite allegations have been levelled by the defendant No, 1 against the plaintiffs, who are real elder sisters of the defendants Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. Qutub-u-Zaman the learned counsel for the defendant No,1 has argued that the defendant No, 1 is the owner of the property in question and the plaintiffs have filed the instant suit with ulterior motives in order to usurp the valuable property of the defendant No,
1. The plaintiffs have not come to this Court with clean hands, therefore, the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost. The learned counsel for the defendant No, 1, further submits that the plaintiffs could not disclose any cause of action having accrued to them against the defendant No, 1 inasmuch as the defendant No, 1 is the owner of the suit property. Then in the same breath the learned counsel has stated that the first conveyance deed in respect of the property in question was executed in the year 1974 in the names of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and thereafter they executed gift deed in favour of the plaintiffs on 29-5-2000, now the plaintiff is no more titled owner of the suit property, therefore, no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiffs for filing the present suit against the defendant No, 1.
The suit being a suit for cancellation of documents is time barred as the first conveyance deed was executed on 27-7-1974 and second instrument, which is a gift deed was registered on 29-5-2000.
The plaintiffs have no title documents nor in physical possession of the suit property. The property in question has already been mutated in the name of the defendant No, 1 in the record of the K.D.A, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
' Mr. Ravi R Pinjani, advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has vehemently argued against the contentions of the counsel for the defendant No, 1 and has submitted before the Court that the counsel for the defendant No, 1 is concealing certain material facts from this Court and is trying to mislead the Court. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has inter alia contended that the suit property was actually purchased by the father of the plaintiffs on 27-7-1974 in the name of the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 as Benami owners, who are the real brothers of the plaintiffs and who at the time of such sale were minors and the father of the plaintiffs purchased the suit property in the names of the defendants Nos. 1 and 3, as Benami owners from his own funds and the said fact was acknowledged by the defendants Nos, 1 and 3, even after attaining majority. On 29-5-2000, when the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 got married and settled down in their lives, conveyed the suit property to the plaintiffs at the instructions of their father by way of execution of Declaration and Confirmation of oral gift dated 27-7-2000 duly registered at the office of Sub-Registrar-T Division- XI, Karachi, which is annexed to the plaint as Annexure-"D". Thereafter, the plaintiffs executed two separate power of Attorneys in favour of the defendants Nos.1 and 3 to look after the suit property and to deal with the authorities in respect of the same, however, when the plaintiffs suspected the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 ulterior motives, the plaintiffs caused public notice issued in the newspapers for cancelling their Power of Attorneys and also notified it to the Sub-Registrar Gulshan-e-Iqbal Town, Karachi. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the plaintiffs have recently discovered that the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 have manipulated fraudulent Power of Attorneys alleged to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant No, 2, who is the wife of the defendant No, 1, who purportedly executed gift deed on 26-6-2012 in favour of defendant No,
7. Thereafter, the defendant No, 7 purportedly executed the gift deed in favour of the defendant No, 1 dated 26-6-2012, which is impugned by way of the present suit through which the same is sought to be cancelled and delivered up in Court. The learned counsel further submits that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have forcibly dispossessed the defendant No, 7, who is mother of defendants Nos. 1 and 3 from the suit property on 26-10-2013. Therefore, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that computing the period of limitation from 26-6-2012 to 16-4-2014, when the instant suit was filed, the same is well within time inasmuch as period of limitation prescribed for filing the suit for cancellation of documents as three years, under Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
' I have heard the arguments extended at the Bar by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the material available on record and have come to the conclusion that the present application is not only misconceived, but the same has also been drafted in most inept manner which fails to convey what is intended by the counsel. Admittedly, the counsel for the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 has concealed the documents from which the plaintiffs say the cause of action has accrued to them for filing the present suit.
In my view the instant suit is not time barred inasmuch as period of limitation for filing the suit for cancellation of documents as prescribed by Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is three years from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside become known to him. Therefore, in view of the above, I am not inclined to grant this application, which is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.