1981 PLP 43 (CLC)
AHMAD‑Appellant Versus Mst. FATEH ETC.‑Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 43 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AHMAD‑Appellant Versus Mst. FATEH ETC.‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 43 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 43 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 43 (CLC) (AHMAD‑Appellant Versus Mst. FATEH ETC.‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Rehman for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9 read with Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42‑Suit for declaration of title, held, must precede suit for possession.
Judgment & Decree
(c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ ‑‑ Question of limitation‑To be decided as per Limitation Act in force at time of institution of suit and not as at time of accrual of cause of action.‑[Limitation]. Ram Karan Singh and another v. Ram Das Singh and others A I R 1931 All. 635; Masjid Shahid Ganj and others v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar and another A I R 19.10 P C 116 and Dost Muhammad and another v. Rais Satik and another P L D 1962 Quetta 82 rel. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑
S. 9 read with Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42‑Suit for declaration of title, held, must precede suit for possession. Where a plaintiff sues for possession on the strength of his title, but an intermediate transaction in respect of the property claimed by him throws a cloud over his title, he must seek a declaration of his rights, before he can get relief of possession. (e) Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act (I of 1920)‑ --S. 7‑Gift by widow‑Whether transfer of land by widow by way of gift inter vivos void or voidable ?‑[Gift]. No doubt under custom the widow's power of disposition is generally restricted, but under certain circumstances she can pass on a complete title to transferee. Transfer for legal necessity, or as an act of good manage ment or with the consent of male decendants/collaterals, may be quoted as instances of valid alienation. It also cannot be disputed that a transfer by a widow ratified by the reversioners attains finality and cannot be questioned. The expression void connotes absolute nullity and that what is incap able of ratification and whereas an act is termed as voidable when the party affected thereby is entitled to rescind it and till its recission, it carried the legal effect which it was intended to have. If void is synony mous with that what does not exist in the eye of law, then how can the subsequent action or inaction of the revisioners of abandonment of their rights by them bring into existence what was non‑existent? Could not the acquiescence on the part of the respondents have legitimatized the transaction of gift? If this is so then gift was voidable and not void. This attribute is inherent in the nature of an alienation of property subject to the incidents of custom which merely received recognition through incorpo ration of section 7 in the Punjab Act I of 1920 and, therefore. its repeal, as regards the character of the transaction is not of any significance. Dost Muhammad and another v. Rais Satik and another P L D 1962 Quetta 82 and Barkhurdar Shah v. Mt. Sat Bharai and another A I R 1931 Lah. 677 ref. Ch. Muhammad Hassan for Appellant. Ch. Abdul Rehman for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Dates of hearing : 5th and 6th April, 1980.