Pakistan Case Law
2008 SCMR 1054

MUHAMMAD DIN through L.Rs, and 16 others vs ZULFIQAR and 2 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2008 SCMR 1054
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,1463-L of 2003
Date2003-06-12
Judge(s)Javed Iqbal and Karamat Nazir Bhandari
Authored byKaramat Nazir Bhandari
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a dispute over the succession to the estate of Mst. Noor Illahi, who died in 1963. The core legal question was whether the deceased was a full owner of the agricultural lands, thereby subjecting the succession to Muslim Personal Law, or a limited owner under customary law, and whether the subsequent suit for declaration filed by the heirs of her brother, Noor Ahmed, was barred by the law of limitation. The trial court and the appellate court initially dismissed the suit as time-barred, despite acknowledging the deceased was a full owner. The Lahore High Court, relying on the principle established in Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi, reversed these findings, holding that limitation does not run against co-owners. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, reiterating that the deceased was a full owner and that the petitioners failed to establish the alleged custom. The Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation, as the principle of adverse possession or limitation is inapplicable among co-owners, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the law of limitation run against co-owners in a suit for succession?
  • Is the estate of a deceased Muslim female governed by Muslim Personal Law or customary law regarding full ownership?
  • Can a court in revisional jurisdiction interfere with concurrent findings on limitation if they are contrary to settled law?
successionMuslim Personal Lawlimitationco-ownerslimited ownercustomary lawinheritance

' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--- The parties are contesting succession to the estate of Mst. Noor Illahi who died in the year 1963 leaving behind agricultural lands in Mauza Sahooka Tehsil and District Pakpattan and Mauza Naseera Jodeka Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar, amongst others.

Mst. Noor Illahi was survived by two daughters, and Noor Ahmed, her real brother. Mutation in respect of her inheritance was sanctioned in the revenue estate of Mauza Naseera Jodeka treating her to be full owner 2/3rd went to two daughters and 1/3rd to Noor Ahmed, her real brother. In respect of other revenue estate i.e, Mauza Sahooka, the mutation was sanctioned treating her to be limited owner. Part of the land was mutated in favour of Amir Khan, the collateral of husband of Mst.

Noor Illahi. The petitioners are the successor-in-interest of the said Amir Khan. Initially the parties litigated before the Revenue officials. Finally, as Noor Ahmad had died, his heirs filed a suit for declaration that they were entitled to succeed and, therefore, were owners to the extent of 8/24th shares in the land of Mst. Noor Illahi located in Mauza Sahooka. It was asserted in the plaint that Mst. Noor Illahi was a full owner and succession to the estate is governed by the Muslim Personal Law. The petitioners contested the suit on various grounds including the limitation. It was asserted Mst. Noor Illahi was a limited owner and therefore, her brother Amir Khan was entitled to succeed to the extent of 7/24th share. The suit was brought in the year 1978. The trial Court held that Mst. Noor Illahi was full owner of the land and her succession is to be governed by the Muslim Personal Law and not by the customary law. The suit was however, dismissed on the ground of limitation by the Civil Judge, Pakpattan Sharif vide judgment dated 24-11-1987. On appeal before the Additional District Judge-II, Pakpattan Sharif, the judgment and decree was affirmed on 15-6-1991. Plaintiffs- respondents filed Civil Revision (C.R. No,551- D of 1991) in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. The High Court following the principle laid down in the case of Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 set aside the finding on Issue No,3 (limitation) and decreed the suit.

2.In support of this 'petition for leave to appeal, it is urged that the High Court should have restrained from interfering in revisional jurisdiction as the findings on the question of limitation were concurrent. He submits that as the Collector accepted the claim of the petitioners and the revision filed by the respondents-plaintiffs before the Commissioner was dismissed for non- prosecution in the year 1964, the suit filed in the year 1978, after 14 years, has to be held as barred by time.

3, The contention has no force. The High Court has correctly held that in the circumstances of the case, no limitation runs against co-owners. Both the trial Courts as well as the appellate Court erred in the exercise of their jurisdiction while holding that the suit was barred by time. This view is contrary to the law declared by this Court in Ghulam Ali's case (supra).

4. The High Court has correctly held that Mst. Noor Ellahi was full owner and that in any case, petitioners have not been able to establish the alleged custom.

5. This petition is without merits and is hereby dismissed. Leave is refused.

Cited by 3 cases

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