1991 PLP 1865 (SCMR)
Malik MUZAFFAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1865 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | Malik MUZAFFAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1865 (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 1991 PLP 1865 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1865 (SCMR) (Malik MUZAFFAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Almas Haider Kazmi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1990.
- S. Almas Haider Kazmi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 20-3-1989, in C.R.1945-D of 1987).
S. 58
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)Art. 185(3)
Earlier mortgage existed in favour of non-Muslim prior to Partition, but after Partition evacuee interest had been created
High Court observed that on migration of evacuee to India, Custodian was deemed to be in possession of suit land in place of evacuee mortgagee and that petitioner on his own showing got land on mortgage in 1959 when mortgagor himself did not have the right to receive possession of land High Court thus found that petitioner had no existing mortgage right either
Findings of Court below being formidable petitioner, had no cause of action and in circumstances his suit was rightly dismissed throughout as misconceived
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ. ‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff against the dismissal by the High Court of his civil revision. It had arisen out of suit for declaration of title against the respondents/defendants to the effect that he being mortgagee of the suit property by efflux of time, had become owner. His suit having been dismissed throughout he also failed in the High Court: leave to appeal has now been sought. It has frankly been stated by the learned counsel that there was an earlier mortgage in favour of non‑Muslim which came into effect in 1943 and was a subsisting mortgage till after 1947/48 and that evacuee interest had thus also been created. The learned Judge in the High Court observed that "on the migration to India of the evacuee the custodian is to be deemed to be in possession of the suit land in place of the evacuee mortgagee". The learned Judge also observed that the petitioner/plaintiff on his own showing got the land on mortgage in 1959 when the mortgager himself "admittedly did not have the right to receive the possession of the land". Accordingly it was held that the petitioner had no existing mortgage right either. These findings being formidable, the petitioner had no cause of action to file the suit. It has rightly been dismissed throughout as misconceived. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. H.B.T./M‑1323/S Leave refused.