Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1991 SCMR 1566

MAHMOOD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HASAN And 7 Other

Citation1991 SCMR 1566
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.783 of 1986 C.R. No.590-D of
Date1989-10-29
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Syed Usman Ali Shah
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4-6-1986, whereby his civil revision was dismissed.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff riled a daclaratory suit to the effect that he was owner in joint possession of the land in dispute with the respondents/defendants and the sale-deed executed on his behalf by his real uncle Hukam Din was void against his interest in the suit land. The suit was resisted by the respondents on the grounds of lapse of limitation, want of proper court-fee and estoppel was also pleaded indicating that ever since 1947, the petitioner/plaintiff did not raise any objection to-the sale under which the respondents were enjoying the exclusive ownership of the suit property. The learned trial Judge framed contesting issues on the pleadings of the parties and after recording evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the suit of the petitioner. Appeal against this order before the Addl. District Judge and subsequent civil revision before the High Court were also dismissed.

3. After hearing the learned counsel in support of this petition and perusal of the record, we have observed that the petitioner was minor when on his behalf the sale was made by his real uncle in favour of Nabi Bakhsh predecessor-in-interest of the respondents through a registered sale-deed dated 21-4-1947. Admittedly, the petitioner had become major in 1964 while the present suit was filed by him on 11-6-1984. The suit is clearly barred by time and all the Courts below have concurrently decided the case against the petitioner.

4. In view of the circumstances we do not find any substance in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch