1991 PLP 1566 (SCMR)
MAHMOOD KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HASAN and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1566 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MAHMOOD KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HASAN and 7 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1566 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1566 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1566 (SCMR) (MAHMOOD KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HASAN and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Assim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th October, 1989.
- Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Assim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4-6-1986, passed in C.R. No.590-D of 1986).
S.6 & Art.12Q
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Petitioner, challenging sale-decd executed by his real uncle in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondents in respect of property owned by petitioner, was minor at time of execution of that sale-deed, but he challenged that sale-deed after about 20 years from attaining majority
Suit filed by petitioner, clearly being barred by time, Courts held concurrently decided against petitioner
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4‑6‑1986, whereby his civil revision was dismissed. The petitioner/plaintiff riled a daclaratory suit to the effect that he was owner in joint possession of the land in dispute with the respondents/defendants and the sale‑deed executed on his behalf by his real uncle Hukam Din was void against his interest in the suit land. The suit was resisted by the respondents on the grounds of lapse of limitation, want of proper court‑fee and estoppel was also pleaded indicating that eversince 1947, the petitioner/plaintiff did not raise any objection to‑the sale under which the respondents were enjoying the exclusive ownership of the suit property. The learned trial Judge framed contesting issues on the pleadings of the parties and after recording evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the suit of the petitioner. Appeal against this order before the Addl. District Judge and subsequent civil revision before the High Court were also dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel in support of this petition and perusal of the record, we have observed that the petitioner was minor when on his behalf the sale was made by his real uncle in favour of Nabi Bakhsh predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents through a registered sale‑deed dated 21‑4‑1947. Admittedly, the petitioner had become major in 1964 while the present suit was filed by him on 11‑6‑1984. The suit is clearly barred by time and all the Courts below have concurrently decided the case against the petitioner. In view of the circumstances we do not find any substance in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1177/S Petition dismissed.