2006 PLP 702 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

One Ghous Muhammad and his son Amir Muhammad purchased two Kanals, sixteen Marlas of land from one Manzoor Hussain Shah through two separate sale-deeds i.e. one in the name of Ghous Muhammad for an area of one Kanal sixteen Marlas and the other in the name of his son Amir Muhammad with respect to an area of one Kanal. The said sale-deeds were registered on 3-6-1942 and according to the said sale-deeds the possession of the said two parcels of land had been handed over to the respective purchasers i.e. Ghous Muhammad and Amir Muhammad.

2. But the same seller is alleged to have sold two Kanals out of the above-mentioned land to the present petitioners/their predecessor-in-interest through an oral Mutation bearing No.2194 sanctioned on 1-84965.

3. In the year 1967 i.e. 3-2-1967 the two sons and a daughter of above-mentioned Ghous Muhammad filed a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Bhakkar praying for possession of the suit-land on the ground that Sadiq etc. now the petitioners before us had dispossessed them of the same about a week prior to the filing of the said suit.

4. The said suit was decreed through a judgment, dated 19-3-1969 but the said decree was reversed by the learned Appellate Court through a judgment dated 28-7-1969. On a second appeal i.e. R.S.A. No.862 of 1969 the learned High Court through its judgment announced on being filed, 30-5-2000 reversed the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court and restored that of the learned trial Judge and decreed the suit as prayed.

5. Hence this petition.

6. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners impugns the judgment of the learned High Court essentially on the ground that the finding of the Honourable High Court that the suit was not barred by limitation was erroneous and further that further finding of the said learned Court that the petitioners were not protected by the provisions of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were also not sustainable.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and having examined the available record we find that no exception could be taken to the conclusions reached by the learned Judge in Chambers concurring with the findings of the learned trial Judge.

8. Having considered the effect of the testimony offered by P.W. and P.W.3 as also the statement of P.W.4 and the statements made by the defence witnesses i.e. D.W.I, D.W.3 and D.W,4 and being also influenced by the fact that the land in question was "Bunjar Qadeem" being situated in the Abadi Deh and in the circumstances the possession having had to follow the title the learned Single Judge rightly concluded that the possession in question was with the plaintiffs till they were allegedly dispossessed and in the circumstances the suit could not be held to be barred by limitation.

9. In view of these findings the learned High Court also concluded that the possession being with the plaintiffs, being a sufficient notice to the prospective buyer, the petitioners-defendants were not entitled to the benefit of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act especially when no evidence was led by anyone about the reasonable steps having been taken to inquire into the title of Manzoor Hussain Shah vis-a-vis the sale in question had earlier sold the same land to the plaintiffs/their predecessor?-in-interest.

10. Having thus, examined all aspects of the matter we find that the impugned judgment did not admit of any interference. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused: M.H./M-240/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.