1985 PLP 1218 (SCMR)
GHULAM HAIDER‑‑Petitioner Versus Hafiz ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1218 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM HAIDER‑‑Petitioner Versus Hafiz ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1218 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1218 (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 1218 (SCMR) (GHULAM HAIDER‑‑Petitioner Versus Hafiz ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Naazar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20‑11‑1978, passed in R.S.A. No. 942 of 1978). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3‑‑Limitation‑‑Suit for declaration‑‑Mutation of inheritance in favour of widow challenged by grandsons at belated stage‑‑Suit time‑barred‑‑Plea that limitation started after petitioners had acquired knowledge of mutation, repelled‑ Predecessor‑in‑interest/father of petitioners having knowledge of transfer and even having objected to sanction of said mutation, limitation started running from date on which it was sanctioned‑‑Suit rightly, held, time‑barred‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑This petition by Ghulam Haider and Murad Khan is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 20‑11‑1978, dismissing their R.S.A.
2. Facts giving rise to the petition, briefly, ate that one Lakha Khan who owned some land in Mauza Lakhani in Tehsil Taunsa, District D. G. Khan, transferred 7/8th share of the said land by way of Tamleek in favour of his son Ahmad and the latter's two sons (i.e. Ghulam Haider and Murad Khan, donor's grandsons) vide Mutation No.
836. It was recorded therein that he (Lakha Khan) had retained 118th share of the land for his wife Mst. Sabhai. Lakha Khan died in August, 1952, whereupon a mutation of inheritance with respect to the said 1/8th share of the total land left by him was sanctioned in favour of his widow Mst. Sabhai on 10‑1‑1953. She sold this piece of land to Hafiz Allah Bakhsh respondent. Her step‑son Ahmad died subsequently in 1972. His (Ahmed's) sons, Haider and Murad (petitioners herein) brought a suit against Mst. Sabhai challenging the mutation of inheritance of 1/8th share of the land left by their grand‑father Lakha Khan and sought a declaration to the effect that they were also entitled to inherit a portion of the said land as heirs of Lakha Khan. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Taunsa, in their favour. Hafiz Allah Bakhsh respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan, who accepted the same vide judgment dated 29‑10‑1978 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners preferred an R . S . A . , before the High Court which was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, who was pleased to agree with the first appellate Court that the suit was barred by limitation. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and have also gone through the impugned judgment. The learned counsel sought to argue that the limitation started running as against the petitioners only after they had acquired the knowledge of the mutation in favour of Mst. Sabhai. A reading of the entry of the mutation, however, shows that petitioner's father Ahmad who was their predecessor‑in‑interest, and also one of the donees alongwith the petitioners was present at the time of attestation of the said mutation and had even objected to its sanction in favour of Mst. Sabhai. It is, thus, clear that petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest had knowledge of the transfer of the land in favour of Mst. Sabhai vide the said mutation. The period of limitation, therefore, started running from the date on which the mutation was sanctioned i.e. 10‑1‑1953. As such, the suit which was filed by the petitioners in 1975 was clearly barred by time. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit. M.I Petition dismissed