1985 PLP 1221 (SCMR)
SARDAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1221 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | SARDAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1221 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1221 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1221 (SCMR) (SARDAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Alvi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- S.M. Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8‑4‑1977, passed in R.S.A. No. 402 of 1975). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3‑‑Limitation‑‑Suit challenging gift made by deceased in favour of his grandsons, dismissed as time‑barred‑‑Order upheld in second appeal‑‑Decision not being amenable to interference, petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 8‑4‑1977, dismissing his R.S.A.
2. The facts, briefly, are that one Ghulam Ghaus (now deceased) had 7 sons. Out of his sons, Nazir died, Ghulam Ghaus made a gift of 1/7th share of his land in favour of 3 sons of Nazir (i.e. Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Ashraf), in August, 1960. Ghaus himself died on 11‑1‑1966 whereupon his remaining six sons as well as his above named 3 grandsons (respondents herein) inherited the remaining land as his heirs. The petitioners thereupon challenged the gift made by Ghulam Ghaus in favour of his grandsons (respondents 1 to 3 herein). The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court as time‑barred. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the District Judge which, too, was dismissed on the same ground on 6‑6‑1975. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an R.S.A. before the High Court which, apart from other reasons, was also dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred by time. Hence the present petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has not been able to show that the suit was not time‑barred. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit. M.I. Petition dismissed