TOWN COMMITTEE, ALIPUR vs ALLAUDDIN and others
This review petition arises from a dispute involving the Town Committee, Alipur, and private parties regarding the possession and ownership of a property. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court concerns the applicability of Section 13 of the Limitation Act 1908, specifically whether its benefits are available to a plaintiff or restricted to a defendant. The Court held that the benefit of Section 13 is exclusively available to a defendant, not a plaintiff, and that the High Court had failed to properly address the limitation issue in the impugned judgment. Furthermore, the Court questioned the Town Committee's authority to occupy the disputed property without valid legal acquisition or title documentation, noting that a mere mutation entry is insufficient to establish lawful ownership. Consequently, the Court allowed the review petition, recalled its previous order, and restored the civil appeal to its original number for further adjudication, while directing the Town Committee to justify its possession and the unauthorized construction raised despite existing stay orders.
- Is the benefit of Section 13 of the Limitation Act 1908 available to a plaintiff?
- Can a local government body retain possession of property based solely on a mutation entry without legal acquisition?
- Does a mutation entry alone constitute sufficient title to property for a Town Committee?
- Section 13, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ.---Having heard the learned counsel for parties as well as respondent Allauddin, we are of the opinion that the judgment under review needs to be reversed as benefit of section 13 of Limitation Act is only available to defendant not the plaintiff as per the language employed therein. Learned High Court had non-suited respondent Allauddin on the point of limitation but this fact was not properly attended to in the impugned judgment. Prima facie, Town Committee Alipur as well cannot be allowed to take over the disputed property without valid entitlement in respect thereto as per the law; notwithstanding the fact whether there was a dispute between the private parties in respect of the validity or otherwise of the agreement dated 15th October, 1967 (Exh.P-I). Therefore, review petition is allowed as a result, order dated 26-6-2008 is recalled and civil appeal arising out of the judgment of the High Court is restored to its original number. It is ordered to be fixed after three weeks.
2. In the meanwhile, learned counsel appearing for Town Committee is required to satisfy as to on what basis Town Committee Alipur took over the possession of the property and whether the said possession could be retained lawfully and whether the claimants of the ownership thereof could, conveniently be non-suited for technical reasons on question of limitation because during hearing of the case, it transpired that private parties were litigating with each other and in the meantime without legally acquiring the rights in that property, same was occupied by the Town Committee Alipur. When we asked learned counsel appearing for Town Committee as to what was the locus standi of the Committee to remain in the possession of this property, he candidly conceded that except a mutation entry existing in its name there was nothing to show that it was acquired in accordance with law or the Committee had any title document in its favour. Thus while hearing the appeal; this question would also be one of the moot points to engage attention of this Court.
Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the Committee stated that before the next date of hearing, he would seek instructions from the concerned quarters in this behalf as well. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary and the Secretary Local Government, Government of the Punjab as well as Administrator of, appellant Committee because according to learned counsel on account of completion of term, the office of Nazim of the Town Committee was lying vacant. Learned counsel appearing for the Town Committee is also required to satisfy us as to why in presence of the stay order granted by different Courts including the High Court, the construction was raised on the disputed property.