1996 PLP 1215 (SCMR)
KARAM ELAHI and 11 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.‑W.F.P. PESHAWAR
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1215 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ |
| Parties | KARAM ELAHI and 11 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.‑W.F.P. PESHAWAR |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1215 (SCMR)?
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 1996 PLP 1215 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1215 (SCMR) (KARAM ELAHI and 11 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.‑W.F.P. PESHAWAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st May, 1995
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- 2. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Jangi v. Jhanda and others (PLD 1961 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 34-) to contend that the High Court was wrong in holding that the limitation shall run from the date of attestation of the mutation. Learned counsel has argued that the well-reasoned orders of the Revenue Authorities have been interfered by the High Court without legal justification.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order/judgment of Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, dated 19‑2‑1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 150 of 1990. ‑‑‑‑S. 60‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 42‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. i48‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Right of mortgagor to redeem‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Starting point‑‑‑Entry of transaction of mortgage was made in mutation by Patwari on 20‑9‑1925 while mutation was attested on 2‑10‑1925‑‑‑Suit for redemption of mortgaged land was filed on 29‑9‑1985‑‑‑All the forums of revenue hierarchy were concurrently of the view that limitation started from 20‑9‑1925 when entry of transaction of mortgage was made in mutation by Patwari so that suit filed on 29‑9‑1985 after more than sixty years of entry in mutation was barred by time‑‑‑High Court, on the contrary, found that starting point of limitation would be from 2‑10‑1925 when mutation was attested and not from date of entry of mutation and that suit filed on 29‑9‑1985 was well within time‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑In terms of provision of Art. 148, Limitation Act, 1908, right to sue for redemption of mortgaged land accrued on 2‑10‑1925, when mutation in question was attested, therefore, suit filed for redemption of mortgaged land was within sixty years‑‑‑Finding to that effect recorded by High Court was unexceptionable‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Jangi v. Jhanda and others PLD 1961 BJ 34 rel. Abdul Hanan and 8 others v. Kapoor Khan and 16 others 1970 SCMR 633 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.
This petition directed against the order dated 19-2-1995 passed by Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad in a writ petition, arises from the facts that on 29-9-1985 Muhammad Afzal Khan respondent No.4 filed application for the restitution of mortgaged land against Karam Elahi and others petitioners before the Collector, Mansehra. The application was resisted amongst others on the ground of limitation. The Collector dismissed the application on 14-12-1987 as barred by time. The appeal filed by Muhammad Afzal Khan against the order of the Collector. was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 15-9-1988. The revision filed by him against the order of the Additional Commissioner was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 7-11-1990. The aforementioned authorities were of the view that the limitation started from 20-9-1925 when the entry of the transaction of the mortgage was made in the Mutation by the Patwari so the suit filed on 29-9-1985 after more than sixty years of the entry in the Mutation was barred by time. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Muhammad Afzal Khan respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition in the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad on 23-11-1991 praying that the aforesaid orders of the Revenue Authorities be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Relying on the case Abdul Hanan and 8 others v. Kapoor Khan and 16 others (1970 SCMR 633), the High Court found that the starting point of limitation in the case shall be from 2-10-1925 when the mutation was attested and not from the date of entry of Mutation.
2. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Jangi v. Jhanda and others (PLD 1961 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 34-) to contend that the High Court was wrong in holding that the limitation shall run from the date of attestation of the mutation. Learned counsel has argued that the well-reasoned orders of the Revenue Authorities have been interfered by the High Court without legal justification.
3. Having carefully examined the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the judgment relied upon by the High Court we find that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is quite distinguishable whereas the judgment relied on by the High Court is on all force. A On careful examination of Article 148 of the Limitation Act, we are also of the view that in the instant case the right to sue for the restitution of the mortgaged land accrued on 2-10-1925 when the relevant mutation was sanctioned.
4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed. A.A./K-276/S Leave refused,