1992 PLP 1771 (SCMR)
ADAM KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ZARIN SHAH and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1771 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Wali Muhammad Khan, J |
| Parties | ADAM KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ZARIN SHAH and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act (XII of 1957)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1771 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act (XII of 1957)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1771 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Wali Muhammad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1771 (SCMR) (ADAM KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ZARIN SHAH and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzad Akbar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Shakirullah Jan; Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.215‑P of 1991).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. No.215‑P of 1991).
- Abdul Hamid Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.224‑P of 1991).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. No.224‑P of 1991).
- Date of hearing: 13th May, 1992,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14‑9‑1991 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Civil Revision No.400 of 1984 and Civil Revision No.160 of 1990). ‑‑‑‑S.3‑‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S.14‑A‑‑ Mortgagees' interest in the evacuee property as mortgagees having been extinguished the only interest they had was of a charge created by law. Subedar Muhammad Tufail v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner Lahore and others 1970 S C M R 73 and Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Sharif 1981 S C M R 550 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.‑‑‑These petitions for leave to appeal have arisen out of declaratory suits by mortgagees of land which was held to be evacuee property. Although in C.P.224‑P of 1991 learned counsel for the petitioners candidly admitted that the suit land had become evacuee property and thus, according to him, the evacuee interest was involved therein, the learned counsel for the petitioners in fC.P.215‑P of 1991 after having made a statement that the property was not evacuee nor evacuee mortgagees' interest was involved therein when called upon to substantiate this statement could not do so. There is no reason for us to ignore the assumption made by the High Court in both the cases that the property involved in this case had become evacuee. The next crucial question which arises is; whether, the law of limitation as contended by the learned counsel in C.P.215‑P of 1991 would operate regarding such property which had become evacuee and in which petitioners had mortgagee rights‑‑according to them the law of limitation was applicable and that on the expiry of the specified period, the mortgagees would be entitled to be clothed with full title and right of ownership in it. The High Court has referred to the provisions contained in the Administration of Evacuee Property Act,' 1958 together with section 14‑A of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, for coming to the conclusion that the mortgagees' interest in the property as mortgagees had been extinguished and that the only interest they had was of a charge created by law. This vi6w is supported by two judgments of this Court. They are Subedar Muhammad Tufail v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others 1970 SCMR 73 and Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Sharif 1981 S C M R
550. When faced with this legal position none of the learned counsel could advance the cases any further. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.B.A./A‑952/S Leave refused.