1996 PLP 127 (CLC)

Sh. Hamid Mukhtar and Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Appellants. Shaukat Mahmood Ramay for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1995. The respondents filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners of the land in dispute as heirs of Rehman son of Bakhsha, last male owner and Mst. Talia Bibi his widow was only a limited owner till her death or remarriage. The appellants contested the suit. It was pleaded by them that they had purchased the land in dispute from Mst. Talia Bibi for consideration of Rs.12,000 through registered sale‑deed dated 9‑2‑1954. The Trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence and after hearing the arguments decreed the suit vide judgment dated 3‑3‑1971, which was assailed by the appellants through an appeal before the lower Appellate Court but their appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16‑7‑1971. Hence the present second appeal, which was admitted to regular hearing and the notices were issued to the respondents, who have appeared and contested the appeal.

2. Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that he has nothing to urge on merits but wants to bring on record the fact that some of the appellants are also legal heirs, therefore, entitled to share in accordance with the personal law. Mr. Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate, who also appeared for the appellants contended that the suit was barred by limitation as the suit under the Punjab Limitation Customs Act, 1920 could be brought within six years, therefore, when Act 5 of 1962 repealing the Customs Act, 1920 came into force the right of the plaintiffs had already been extinguished by limitation. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to the judgments reported as Firm Chuni Lal‑Rali Ram v. Altaf‑ul‑Rahman, and others (AIR 1939 Lahore 290) and Muhammad Ali and another v. Abdul Khaliq and another (PLD 1958(W.P) Lahore 226).

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents explained that Bati, plaintiff was minor while Khizar Hayat was born after the alleged alienation in 1954, therefore, they are entitled to benefit of their minority. The admitted position is that the plaintiffs were in possession, therefore, they could bring the suit within six years from the date of accrual of cause of action. Their suit was covered under Article 120 of the Limitation Act after the repeal of the Customs Act, 1920, therefore, within the limitation. No other point was argued. Before parting with the judgment it is made clear that the estate would devolve on the heirs whether the appellants or respondents in accordance with the personal law. The Revenue Authorities are directed to decide the mutation expeditiously and in any case by 29th of June, 1995.

4. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. AA./G‑299/L. Appeal dismissed.