2008 PLP 1054 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD DIN through L.Rs. and 16 others — Petitioners Versus ZULFIQAR and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1054 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD DIN through L.Rs. and 16 others — Petitioners Versus ZULFIQAR and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1054 (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 2008 PLP 1054 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1054 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD DIN through L.Rs. and 16 others — Petitioners Versus ZULFIQAR and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmed Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th June, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 14-4-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in Civil Revision No.551-D of 1991).
S. 42
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Respondents/Successors-in-interest of brother of original owner of property in question in their suit for declaration claimed that deceased original owner of property' in question was full owner and succession to her estate would be governed by Muslim Personal Law and they were owners to the extent of 8/24th shares in property of deceased original owner
Petitioners who were legal heirs of one of collaterals of husband of original owner contested suit on various grounds including limitation
Both Trial Court and Appellate Court below dismissed suit, but High Court set aside concurrent findings of Courts below and decreed the suit
High Court had correctly held that in circumstances of case, no limitation would run against co-owners
Both Trial Court as well as Appellate Court had erred in exercise of their jurisdiction while holding that suit was barred by time
High Court also had correctly held that original owner was full owner and that petitioner had not been able to establish alleged custom. Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 ref.
Judgment & Decree
KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.
The parties are contesting succession to the estate of Mst. Noor Illahi who died in the year 1963 leaving behind agricultural lands in Mauza Sahooka Tehsil and District Pakpattan and Mauza Naseera Jodeka Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar, amongst others. Mst. Noor Illahi was survived by two daughters, and Noor Ahmed, her real brother. Mutation in respect of her inheritance was sanctioned in the revenue estate of Mauza Naseera Jodeka treating her to be full owner 2/3rd went to two daughters and 1/3rd to Noor Ahmed, her real brother. In respect of other revenue estate i.e. Mauza Sahooka, the mutation was sanctioned treating her to be limited owner. Part of the land was mutated in favour of Amir Khan, the collateral of husband of Mst. Noor Illahi. The petitioners are the successor-in-interest of the said Amir Khan. Initially the parties litigated before the Revenue officials. Finally, as Noor Ahmad had died, his heirs filed a suit for declaration that they were entitled to succeed and, therefore, were owners to the extent of 8/24th shares in the land of Mst. Noor Illahi located in Mauza Sahooka. It was asserted in the plaint that Mst. Noor Illahi was a full owner and succession to the estate is governed by the Muslim Personal Law. The petitioners contested the suit on various grounds including the limitation. It was asserted Mst. Noor Illahi was a limited owner and therefore, her brother Amir Khan was entitled to succeed to the extent of 7/24th share. The suit was brought in the year 1978. The trial Court held that Mst. Noor Illahi was full owner of the land and her succession is to be governed by the Muslim Personal Law and not by the customary law. The suit was however, dismissed on the ground of limitation by the Civil Judge, Pakpattan Sharif vide judgment dated 24-11-1987. On appeal before the Additional District Judge-II, Pakpattan Sharif, the judgment and decree was affirmed on 15-6-1991. Plaintiffs-respondents filed Civil Revision (C.R. No.551-D of 1991) in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. The High Court following the principle laid down in the case of Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 set aside the finding on Issue No.3 (limitation) and decreed the suit.
2. In support of this petition for leave to appeal, it is urged that the High Court should have restrained from interfering in revisional jurisdiction as the findings on the question of limitation were concurrent. He submits that as the Collector accepted the claim of the petitioners and the revision filed by the respondents-plaintiffs before the Commissioner was dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 1964, the suit filed in the year 1978, after 14 years, has to be held; as barred by time.
3. The contention has no force. The High Court has correctly held that in the circumstances of the case, no limitation runs against co-owners. Both the trial Courts as well as the appellate Court erred in the exercise of their jurisdiction while holding that the suit was barred by time. This view is contrary to the law declared by this Court in Ghulam Ali's case (supra).
4. The High Court has correctly held that Mst. Noor Ellahi was full owner and that in any case, petitioners have not been able to establish the alleged custom.
5. This petition is without merits and is hereby dismissed. Leave is refused. H.B.T./M-212/SC Petition dismissed.