SARDAR MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Other
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal. The core legal matter involves a challenge to a gift of land made by the deceased Ghulam Ghaus in favour of his grandsons, which was subsequently contested by his other sons upon his death. The trial court, the district judge in appeal, and the High Court concurrently dismissed the suit as being barred by time. The Supreme Court heard the petitioner's counsel and observed that he failed to demonstrate that the suit was within time. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the suit being time-barred were unexceptionable, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal on the ground of lacking merit. The key principle affirmed is that where concurrent lower courts dismiss a suit as time-barred and the petitioner fails to establish limitation, leave to appeal will be refused.
- Whether a suit challenging a gift can proceed when concurrently found to be barred by time?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal when the petitioner fails to establish limitation?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 8-4-1977, dismissing his R.S.A.
2. The facts, briefly, are that one Ghulam Ghaus (now deceased) had 7 sons. Out of his sons, Nazir died, Ghulam Ghaus made a gift of 1/7th share of his land in favour of 3 sons of Nazir (i.e. Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Ashraf), in August, 1960. Ghaus himself died on 11-1-1966 whereupon his remaining six sons as well as his above named 3 grandsons (respondents herein) inherited the remaining land as his heirs. The petitioners thereupon challenged the gift made by Ghulam Ghaus in favour of his grandsons (respondents 1 to 3 herein).
The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court as the-barred. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the District Judge which, to, was dismissed on the same ground on 6-6-1975.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed an R.S.A. Before the High Court which, apart from other reasons, was also dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred by the.
Hence the present petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has not been able to show that the suit was not the-barred.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit.
Cited by 1 case
- Munir Ahmad vs Hassan Hussain through LRs. and others 2021 CLC 1575