2013 PLP 299 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RUSTAM and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. MAKHAN JAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 299 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Mian Saqib Nisar and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RUSTAM and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. MAKHAN JAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 299 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 299 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Mian Saqib Nisar and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 299 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RUSTAM and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. MAKHAN JAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 10.
- Date of hearing: 14th November, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 10-11-2010 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench in Civil Revision No.233 of 2007).
S. 42
Claimant's predecessor-in-interest not challenging such mutation during his/her life
Effect
Petitioners' filed suit for declaration impugning mutation of inheritance and claimed their share of inheritance as successors of the deceased lady in question
Suit was decreed by Trial Court, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court
High Court reversed findings of courts below and dismissed the suit
Petitioners contended that they had a bona fide right to claim their share of inheritance, and that High Court non-suited them merely on the ground of limitation
Admittedly impugned mutation of inheritance dated 9-7-1927 was never challenged by the deceased lady in question, who remained alive till the year 1975, and no reason whatsoever was reflected either in the plaint or in the evidence led to indicate as to why she did not challenge the said mutation
Petitioners never claimed that either they or their predecessor-in-interest were unaware of the impugned mutation
Judgment of High Court was unexceptionable in such circumstances
Petition was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused. Allah Wasaya v. Rahim Bakhsh 1991 SCMR 1369 and Jumma Khan v. Mst. Zenab Bibi PLD 2002 SC 823 distinguished. Abdul Haq v. Mst. Surraya Begum 2002 SCMR 1330 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioners' suit for declaration impugning the mutation of inheritance of Kala Khan bearing No.571 dated 9-7-1927 and claiming their share of inheritance as successor of Mst. Karam Jan was decreed by the learned trial Court in terms of its judgment dated 27-6-2006, which was affirmed in appeal but the same has been reversed and suit dismissed by the learned High Court vide the impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave on the ground that the learned High Court has reversed the concurrent judgments and decrees without adverting to the issue that petitioners had a bona fide right to claim their share of inheritance of Mst. Karam Jan; that they have been non-suited merely on the ground of limitation; that petitioners could not be deprived of their share on this hyper technical point; that the learned Court also failed to appreciate that there are co-sharers in the property and therefore, the bar of limitation could not stand in their way. In support of the submissions made, learned counsel relied on Allah Wasaya v. Rahim Bakhsh (1991 SCMR 1369) and Jumma Khan v. Mst. Zenab Bibi (PLD 2002 SC 823).
3. Having heard petitioners' learned counsel at some length, we find that admittedly the impugned mutation of inheritance bearing No.571 dated 9-7-1927 was never challenged by Mst. Karam Jan; that she remained alive till 1975 and no reason whatsoever is reflected either in the plaint or in the evidence led to indicate as to why she did not challenge the said mutation. It has never been the case of the petitioners that either they or their predecessor-in-interest were unaware of the said mutation. In the afore-referred circumstances, the judgment of the learned High Court is unexceptionable. So far as the precedent case-law to which reference has been made by petitioners' learned counsel is concerned, the same is distinguishable as in none of the judgments the question of locus standi was a moot point. In Abdul Haq v. Mst. Surraya Begum (2002 SCMR 1330), this Court inter alia was seized of a similar issue and while dismissing the petition, it observed as follows:-- "
11. Atta Muhammad was deprived of right to inherit the property as a consequence of mutation in dispute but he did not challenge the same during his lifetime. The petitioners claimed the property through Atta Muhammad as his heirs who filed the suit as late in 1979 about nine years after the sanction of mutation which had already been given effect to in the record of rights. The petitioners, therefore, had no locus standi to challenge the mutation independently, for Atta Muhammad through whom they claimed inheritance himself had not challenged the same during his lifetime."
4. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is dismissed and leave refused. MWA/M-72/SC Petition dismissed.