Home Maxims & Terms Acquiescence of claimant heir meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Acquiescence of claimant heir

Acquiescence of claimant heir legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2014 PLD 167 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
InheritanceLimitationScopeProperty claimed on basis of inheritanceAcquiescence of claimant heirEffect

Law of limitation was not to be ignored entirely or brushed aside whenever property was claimed on the basis of inheritance

Conduct of claimant-heir might become relevant and material when the bar of time limitation was pleaded by the defendant-heir

Defendant-heir might show that claimant-heir by his/her acts, overt or implicit, demonstrated acquiescence in the defendant's title to the suit property thereby allowing him to deal with it was exclusive owner, for instance by regularly and openly disposing of parts of the property or developing it at his own expense over a period of time within the knowledge of the claimed-heir

When in such circumstances the defendant-heir transferred suit property for valuable consideration, the transferee was entitled to believe that defendant-heir had a valid title to transfer.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Acquiescence of claimant heir", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124944546

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Acquiescence of claimant heir"

PLD 2014
2013-June-18

P L D 2014 Supreme Court 167

Mst. GRANA through Legal Heirs and others — Appellants Versus SAHIB KAMALA BIBI and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
CLC 2026
2025-April-10

2026 C L C 424

ASLIYAT KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SAEEDA and others — Respondents

Court: Peshawar
YLR 2020
Civil Revision No. 34-P of 2007, decided on 2nd December, 2019.

2020 Y L R 2645

Arbab MUHAMMAD KABIR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus Arbab ABDUR REHMAN and others — Respondents

Court: Peshawar
MLD 1989
Regular Second Appeals Nos. 453 and 454 of 1974, decided on 22nd February, 1989.

1989 M L D 488

GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD DIN and others‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
SCMR 1983
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 624 of 1977, decided on 15th Feburary,1978.

1983 S C M R 737

Mst. KUBRA BIBI AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus ABDUL HAQ AND 7 OTHERS-Respondents

Court: --- Art. 185(3) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10 & Sched.-Dispute. over transfer of property-Parties appearing before Settlement Authorities and agitating their respective contentions-Objection not raised before Chief Settlement Commissioner against his jurisdiction to hear matter and petitioner acquiescing therein-Held, can neither be raised before Supreme Court nor given any weight.-Jurisdiction,
SCMR 1979
Civil Petition No. 359 of 1977, decided on 21st September, 1978.

1979 S C M R 276

Mst. SAKINA (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZIA ULLAH KHAN, CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC.‑Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 2025
2025-April-23

P L D 2025 Lahore 581

MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 17 others — Respondents

Court: High Court
SCMR 2023
Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2016, decided on 1st August, 2023.

2023 S C M R 1928

NOOR DIN (DECEASED) through LRs — Appellant Versus PERVAIZ AKHTAR and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
MLD 1987
Letters Patent Appeal No.65 of 1972, heard on 26th January, 1987.

1987 M L D 750

KALU — Appellant Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 1989
Shariat Petition No.12/I of 1988, decided on 29th June, 1989.

P L D 1989 Federal Shariat Court 143

and Allama Dr. Fida Muhammad, JJ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN — Respondent

Court: ‑‑‑Limitation‑‑Principle of "Tamadi"‑‑Time limit can be placed both in respect of extinguishment of right and for the purpose of proving a claim‑‑When facts of a case show that owner or the holder of a right having knowledge of the fact of time limit did not claim or challenge, it will be presumed that he waived his right.‑‑ Limitation.