1999SCMR2266 (PLP)
Mst. HAMEEDAN BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. ATTA ULLAH — Respondent
| Citation | 1999SCMR2266 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. HAMEEDAN BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. ATTA ULLAH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999SCMR2266 (PLP)?
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 1999SCMR2266 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999SCMR2266 (PLP) (Mst. HAMEEDAN BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. ATTA ULLAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Saleem Shahnazi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record instructed by Ahmed Waheed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st July, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 25-9-1997, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.2158 of 1989).
S. 122
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 120
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Findings of two Courts below that no gift was made by owner of property in dispute and that plaintiff was entitled to his due share, was upheld by High Court
Defendants had failed to prove that findings of Courts below suffered from any non-reading or disregard of any material evidence on record
Gift being claimed as inoperative, fake and void, plaintiff could file suit under Art. 120 of Limitation Act, 1908 and that right to sue would accrue after demise of owner of property and his heirs could not file suit during his lifetime.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 25-9-1998 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.2158 of 1989.
2. Brief facts are that the respondent filed a suit for joint possession to the extent of one-third share in the suit land. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 14-7-1987. The appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed on 30-9-1989 by the Lower Appellate Court. Same was the fate of the revision petition, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 25-9-1997.
3. The High Court was of the view that Article 120 of the Limitation Act was applicable, which provides a six years' period for filing a suit for declaration from the date when the right to sue accrues and in case where cancellation of a document is sought by a party or the persons claiming thereof, Article 91 would apply, which provides three year's for filing a suit from the date when such right accrues.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated his submissions made before the High Court that Article 91 of the Limitation Act is applicable, inasmuch, the cause of action had accrued on 2-5-1975 i.e. the date of death of Ibrahim, donor and the suit was brought on 24-4-1980, which was beyond time. The learned Judge in Chambers correctly construed the provisions of Articles 91 and 120 of the Limitation Act. The High Court was also right in observing that as the gift was being claimed as inoperative, fake and void, therefore, the respondent could file a suit under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, in that, the right to sue would accrue after the demise of Ibrahim and the heirs could not file a suit during his lifetime.
5. The High Court was also right in not interfering with the findings of the two Courts below that no gift was made by Ibrahim and respondent was entitled to his due share. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed td satisfy the High Court as well as this Court that the findings of the two Courts below suffered from any misreading or disregard of any material evidence on record.
6. Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave is refused. H.B.T./H-23/S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.