1995SCMR747 (PLP)
Kh. ALLAH BAKHSH and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 11 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR747 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Kh. ALLAH BAKHSH and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 11 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR747 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR747 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR747 (PLP) (Kh. ALLAH BAKHSH and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 11 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hameed Azhar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. .
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court. Multan Bench, dated 17‑3‑1992 in Civil Revision No. 104 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 67‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Property ‑in question, owned by non‑Muslims was mortgaged with plaintiffs‑‑‑Such land was treated as evacuee property and transferred to respondents‑‑‑Plaintiffs suit for declaration that mortgage was more than sixty years old at the time of partition of sub‑continent and as such by prescription mortgagors had lost their right in the land at the time of partition‑‑ Plaint was rejected by Trial Court and said order was upheld up to the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plaintiffs had not been able to show that date when mortgage in their favour was created by non‑Muslims‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal indicated that mortgage in question, was created in 1910‑‑‑Plaintiffs assertion that mortgage in question, was more than sixty years old on the eve of partition had, thus, no foundation‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court. Multan Bench, dated 17‑3‑1992 in Civil Revision No. 104 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 67‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Property ‑in question, owned by non‑Muslims was mortgaged with plaintiffs‑‑‑Such land was treated as evacuee property and transferred to respondents‑‑‑Plaintiffs suit for declaration that mortgage was more than sixty years old at the time of partition of sub‑continent and as such by prescription mortgagors had lost their right in the land at the time of partition‑‑ Plaint was rejected by Trial Court and said order was upheld up to the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plaintiffs had not been able to show that date when mortgage in their favour was created by non‑Muslims‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal indicated that mortgage in question, was created in 1910‑‑‑Plaintiffs assertion that mortgage in question, was more than sixty years old on the eve of partition had, thus, no foundation‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Hameed Azhar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. . Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th July, 1993. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners were mortgagees of the land in dispute which was owned by some Hindus who migrated to India soon after Independence. The land was treated as evacuee property and was transferred to the predcessor‑in‑interest of the respondents against their verified claim. In 1981, the petitioner brought the present suit for a declaration inter alia to the effect that the mortgage was more than 60 years old at the time of Independence and as such by prescription the mortgagees had lost their right in the land before they left Pakistan. Their plaint was rejected by the trial Court and its order in this regard was upheld in first appeal by the Additional District Judge and in revision by the High Court. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show the date when the mortgage in their favour was created by the non‑Muslims. In fact, from petition for special leave to appeal filed in this Court it appears that the mortgage was created in 1910. Thus, the assertion of the petitioners that the mortgage was more than 60 years old on the eve of the Independence has no foundation. Leave is accordingly refused. A.A./A‑1153/S Leave refused.