1991 PLP 451 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHAFFAR — Petitioner Versus ZAIUR RAHIM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 451 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFFAR — Petitioner Versus ZAIUR RAHIM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 451 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 451 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. 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 451 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHAFFAR — Petitioner Versus ZAIUR RAHIM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Basir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Kh. M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehar Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1990.
- Basir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Kh. M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehar Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 23-9-1989 in C.R. No. 314-D of 1989).
S.10
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Father of petitioner and predecessor-in-interest of respondent had entered into Deed of Association showing that former had surrendered his full rights in favour of petitioner which was filed with the Settlement Authorities in pursuance whereof P.T.O. was issued in favour of petitioner and subsequently P.T.D. was also issued to him
After death of their predecessor-in-interest, respondents filed suit for declaration that Deed of Association, P.T.O. and P.T.D. issued in favour of petitioner were illegal, null and void and that they were entitled to inherit property
Suit was decreed and such decree was maintained both in appeal and revision
Leave to appeal-- Predecessor-in-interest of respondents having not challenged in his lifetime P.T.O. and P.T.D. issued in petitioner's favour, his silence and conduct led to the inference as if he had accepted the transfer
Leave to appeal was granted to consider all the points arising out of the case.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This is petition by Abdul Ghaffar seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 23‑9‑1989.
2. Abdul Rahim, the father of both Abdul Jabbar, predecessor‑in‑interest of present respondents Nos.1 to 3, and Abdul Ghaffar, the present petitioner, filed C.S. Form with the Settlement Authorities for the transfer of the disputed shop in his name. On 19‑5‑1973 Deed of Association purporting to be between Abdul Rahim and Abdul Jabbar was filed with the Settlement Authorities showing that Abdul Rahim had surrendered his full rights in favour of Abdul Ghaffar. An order was passed that if the Deed of Association was in order it may be acted upon. In pursuance of the said Deed of Association, P.T.O. was issued in favour of Abdul Ghaffar on 27‑11‑1973. At this stage it may be stated that Abdul Rahim had died on 11‑6‑1973. Later, the P.T.D. was also issued in favour of Abdul Ghaffar petitioner. On 13‑4‑1973 Ziaur Rahim and others, respondents Nos.1 to 3, heirs of Abdul Jabbar deceased, filed a suit for declaration that the Deed of Association, the P.T.O. and the P.T.D. issued in favour of Abdul Ghaffar petitioner were illegal, null and void and that they were entitled to inherit 1/4th of the property. The trial Court decreed the suit, whose findings were upheld by both the appellate and revisional Court.
3. On behalf of the petitioner the judgments of the three Courts below have been assailed primarily on the question of limitation. It is suggested that Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applies to the case and that suit of respondents Nos.1 to 3 was time‑barred.
4. We notice that Abdul Jabbar, the predecessor‑in‑interest of Ziaur Rahim and others, respondents Nos.1 to 3, did. not in his own lifetime challenge the P.T.O. and P.T.D. His silence and conduct leads to the inference as if he had accepted the transfer. In these circumstances, we would grant leave to appeal to consider all the points arising out of the case. The petitioner shall furnish security in the sum of Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be heard on the basis of the present record. Parties are at liberty to file such further documents as they consider 6t and proper for the full and final disposal of the appeal. Status quo shall be maintained, till the final disposal of the appeal. AA/A‑725/S Leave granted.