MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD YAR AND ANOTHR
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court which dismissed two regular second appeals concerning a dispute over ownership of Shamlat land measuring 7,650 kanals and 4 marlas situated in Village Choni Shimali Dagar, Tehsil and District Bhakkar. The petitioner had brought a suit for declaration claiming exclusive ownership of the Shamlat land on the ground that his ancestor founded the village. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court accepted the appeals of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The High Court upheld the dismissal, concluding inter alia that the suit was barred by limitation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's declaratory suit was within time and whether interference was warranted against the concurrent findings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to show any error in the High Court's finding that the suit was time-barred, which went to the root of the case. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
- Is a declaratory suit regarding ownership of Shamlat land liable to be dismissed if it is found to be time-barred?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court regarding limitation?
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This order will dispose of C. P. S. L. A. No, 345/77 and C. P. S. L. A. No, 347/77 as they are directed against the same judgment of the High Court, dated 9-3-1977, dismissing petitioner's two R. S. As. (Nos. 751/62 and 763/62). The main judgment has been recorded in R. S. A.
No, 751/62 which contains the reasons for the dis missal of the two R. S. As.
2. The dispute relates to land measuring 7,650 kanals and 4 marlas situated in Village Choni Shimali Dagar, Tehsil and District Bhakkar. The present petitioner brought a suit for declaration as to his exclusive ownership of Shamlat on the ground that the village was founded by their ancestor, Khana who thus became owner of the entire land in village including Shamlat land. Later, the defendant obtained some land in the village for cultivation. The defendants (respondents) who broke land and brought it under cultivation became Ala-cum-Adna Malik. Some land was cultivated through payment of Jhuri and was held by cultivator as Adna Malik, under the plaintiff.
But subsequently they claimed ownership of the portions of the Shamlat land also. This gave rise to a declaratory suit by the petitioner who claimed the ownership of the entire Shamlat land. The suit was decreed. Two separate appeals were filed against it, one by Zaman defendant and the other by the remaining defendants. These were accepted and the suit was dismissed. Against this the petitioner filed 2 separate R. S. As which were rejected vide the impugned judgments, dated 9-3- 1977, the main judgment having been given in R. S. A. No, 751/62.
' Hence the present petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment of the High Court. We find that one off the reasons for dismissal of the two appeals by the High Court, which goes to the root of the case was that the suit itself was time-barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to satisfy us as to why this Court should interfere and set aside the abovenoted finding of the High Court.
' Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed.