1981 PLP 1156 (CLC)
Mst. HANIFA BEGUM‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN AND 46 others — ‑Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1156 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Azad J & K |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. HANIFA BEGUM‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN AND 46 others — ‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑, (a) Mahammadan LAW, (d) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1156 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑, (a) Mahammadan LAW, (d) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1156 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Azad J & K bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1156 (CLC) (Mst. HANIFA BEGUM‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN AND 46 others — ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sayab Khalid for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Alienation‑--Muslim Law, de facto guardian of a minor, held, not competent to alienate property of minor even for necessity‑ Such a transfer held further, ab initio void and transfers no title to transferee.
Arts. 44 & 91‑Neither Art. 44 nor Art. 91 of Act, held, appli cable to cases for recovery of possession by person whose property transferred by a de facto guardian.
Art. 44‑Possession under a void deed, held, adverse to owner.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ Ss. 6 & 8‑Limitation‑‑Combined effect of Ss. 6 & 8 of Act: period of limitation expiring more than. 3 years after cessation‑ of disability, plaintiff not entitled to any extension whatsoever and be must sue within ordinary period of limitation computed from starting point of limitation‑Where, however, at time of cessation of disability, remaining period of limitation less than 3 years, plaintiff, held entitled to sue within 3 years from date of cessation of disability. [Interpretation of statutes]. (e) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑
Arts. 44 & 91‑Neither Art. 44 nor Art. 91 of Act, held, appli cable to cases for recovery of possession by person whose property transferred by a de facto guardian. A I R 1915 Nag. 53; A I R 1929 All. 879; A I R 1931 Mad. 597; A I R 1936 Mad. 884; A I R 1943 Cal. 203; A I R 1954 Hyd. 44; P L D 1952 Dacca 347 and P L D 1953 B J 1 ref. (d) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑ Art. 44‑Minor, held, entitled to bring suit for recovery of posses sion within 12 years from date when possession of transferee becomes adverse or within 3 years after attaining majority. (e) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑
Art. 44‑Possession under a void deed, held, adverse to owner. Sardar Khan for Appellant. Sayab Khalid for Respondents. Date of institution : 5th August, 1980.