ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN, J.---The instant revision has been preferred against concurrent findings of the Courts below.
2. The applicants filed F.C. Suit No,85/2008 in respect of residential premises admeasuring 5644 sq. feet, situated in Ward-B Mirpurkhas, claiming that plaintiff No,1 is son of Haji Lutufullah Khan and grandson of late Haji Allandad Khan, whereas the plaintiff No,2 is widow of the said late Haji Mir Allandad Khan. The plaintiff No,1 claimed that Haji Allandad Khan adopted him as son. He submits that his grand-father being old authorized Haji Lutufullah to look after and manage his properties including the suit property, during his life time. The said late Haji Allandad Khan died somewhere in the year 1984. Whereafter, Haji Lutufullah continued to look after the property in question as the plaintiff No,1 was minor at that time and plaintiff No,2 was an old female. The said Haji Lutufullah, father of plaintiff No,1, died without disclosing about the suit property to the plaintiff, who only came to know of the suit property in June, 2008 that the said property had been gifted to the plaintiffs which gift was registered on 07.09.1980, however, there was an error in the name of donor where the name was written as Mir Haji Abdullah Khan instead of Mir Haji Allandad Khan. He also came to know that in fact the property in question was sold to defendants Nos,1 to 3 in the year 1985 and mutated in their names in the year 1995. The case of the plaintiffs is that when the gift was made he was minor and his grand-mother being old and Perdah Nasheen lady, they were not aware of the suit property which had changed hands and when he gained majority he started finding out the details of the said property. Coming to know about the gift, he filed the instant suit alleging that the suit property was wrongly sold through registered sale- deed and a declaration was sought to the effect that the said transaction be declared illegal and void and the possession of the suit property be declared as wrongly handed over to the defendants. The suit was vigorously contested by the defendants Nos,1 to 3. They filed written statement, wherein they stated that the said gift deed clearly showed that plaintiff No,2 had received the gift as she appeared before the competent authorities for herself and on behalf of the plaintiff No, 1 . It was also submitted by the defendants that in fact through a power of attorney dated 15.10.1984 mother of the plaintiff No,1 appointed Mir Habibullah Khan as her attorney in respect of the property in question and the said attorney sold the property to defendants Nos,1 to 3 in the year 1985. The defendants also moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that suit of the plaintiffs was hopelessly barred by limitation and also hit by the laches and acquiescence. The trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the record through order dated 13.03.2010 while disposing of the Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. application, rejected the plaint as being seriously hit by limitation and laches. The relevant para graph of the said order (available on page-95 of the Court file) is reproduced as under:-- "Admittedly, as per the contents of plaint as stated in paragraph No,8 of the plaint on "09.1.1985" suit property was sold out to defendants Nos,] to 3 by the plaintiff through their attorney vide registered sale deed and the plaintiff No,1 was 11 years old in the year 1985 whereas plaintiff No,2 being grand mother of plaintiff No,1 was major and surprisingly she was not aware about the gift made by the late S.B. Mir Allandad Khan in the favour of plaintiffs Nos,1 and 2 as mentioned in the plaint that the both plaintiffs were not aware about the gift of suit property. Now it is crystal clear that if some thing was done wrongfully then the plaintiff became major in the year 1992 as per their own version and he was required to file suit in the year 1992 instead to file present suit in the year 2008 with the lapse of 25 years delay from the date of impugned sale deed and 18 years delay from the date of becoming major by the plaintiff No,1, hence I think apparently the suit is barred under the law of limitation and the principle of laches also applies to the plaintiff therefore, the suit of plaintiffs looks to be time barred. it is also fact that the plaintiffs have not mentioned any reasonable grounds which apply to common sense about such delay in filing the suit. It is also admitted position that the impugned sale transaction was conducted through registered sale deed and the defendants are continuously enjoying possession over suit property without any disturbance from any side. 1 think no any cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs to file present suit against defendants. It is also admitted fact that the plaintiffs have instituted this suit without exhausting remedies available to them through approaching to the concerned authorities."
3. Being dissatisfied with this outcome, the applicants preferred an appeal where the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2013 was challenged. The appellate Court after carefully perusing the record and hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel refused to interfere in the matter as no illegality or material irregularity was found in the order of the trial Court. By way of this observation, the appellate Court also pointed out that while it was the assertion of the plaintiff No,1 that he was minor (11 years old) in the year 1985 when the suit property was sold to the defendants, accordingly he attained majority in 1992 but even thereafter he waited for 16 years to file the instant suit which was seriously hit by laches not to mention barred by limitation.
4. In his arguments, learned counsel for the applicants reiterated all the facts which have been considered by the Courts below. Nothing new was pointed out except that the applicant No,1 was minor at the time of sale of the property in question. I have an opportunity to go through the findings of the Courts below. It is clear that the property for which the suit was instituted was undoubtedly gifted to the plaintiff No,2 who appeared herself before the concerned authorities and accepted the gift, whereafter, she appointed Mir Habibullah Khan as her attorney in respect of the property in question, who while operating under the said power of attorney sold out the property in question to defendants Nos,1 to 3 in the year 1985, for which a valid sale certificate dated 09.01.1985 was also obtained in favour of defendants Nos,1 to 3. This being a past and closed transaction, the applicant No, 1 's claim that he was minor and was not aware of the said transaction is devoid of any merit because the plaintiff / applicant No,2 herself had received the gift as well as executed power of attorney in favour of Mir Habibullah Khan, who sold the said property in the year 1985, therefore, the plaintiff as a grand-son could not claim any interest in the property in question sold in the year 1985, irrespective of the fact how old he was at that time. Be that as it may, even when he attained majority in the year 1992, it was after 16 years that he embarked upon filing the suit in the year 2008, therefore, all these claims being false and frivolous have no sanctity in the eyes of law and his claim to the suit property was rightly rejected by the Courts below, whose findings I have no reasons to interfere with.
5. These are the reasons of my order dated 03.04.2018, whereby the instant revision was dismissed along with pending application.