GHULAM HUSSAIN And Another vs MIRAN Alias MIR MUHAMMAD
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had allowed revision applications filed by the respondent. The dispute originated from suits for specific performance of contracts of sale regarding survey No. 271 in Jacobabad, involving both written and oral agreements. While the trial court initially decreed the suits in favor of the respondent, the Additional District Judge dismissed them, ruling they were barred by limitation under the Limitation Act. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, finding that the petitioners failed to prove the suits were filed beyond the three-year limitation period from the date of refusal of performance. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the High Court and determined that the factual determination regarding the limitation period was sound and unexceptionable. Consequently, the Court held that no substantial question of law existed to warrant interference, and the petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed, thereby affirming the High Court's restoration of the trial court's decrees.
- Whether a suit for specific performance is barred by limitation if the plaintiff fails to prove the suit was brought within three years of the refusal of performance?
- Does a finding of fact regarding the limitation period by the High Court in revision constitute a question of law justifying leave to appeal?
- Article 113, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--This order will dispose of the above two petitions for leave to appeal which arise out of a common judgment of the learned Sind High Court whereby two revision applications brought by the respondent in each case, were allowed.
2. The dispute in this case relates to survey No. 271 in Ward No. 1, Jacobabad, which belongs to the two petitioners, namely, Ghulam Hussain and Habibullah in equal shares. The respondent filed suits for specific performance of contract of sales, dated 1958 whereby the petitioners had agreed to convey their share in the above survey number. The agreement between the respondent and the petitioner Ghulam Hussain was in writing while the other agreement between the petitioner Habibullah, and the respondent was oral. The suits were decreed by the learned trial Judge. The petitioners filed First Appeals which were allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jacobabad and the suits of the respondent of specific performance were dismissed as barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Aggrieved by this judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 30-4-1976 the respondent filed two revision applications in the High Court bearing Nos. 226 and 227 of 1976 which were allowed as per impugned judgment and the judgments and decrees, dated 31-10-1974 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jacobabad were restored with cost throughout.
3.The main question raised in the revision applications before the High Court with regard to the applicability of section 113 of the Limitation Act stands decided on facts of the case. The learned Judge in the High Court after full discussion of the facts of the case came to hold that the petitioners had failed to prove that the plaintiff /respondent had brought the suits beyond the period of three years from the date of any notice of refusal of performance of the contracts by the petitioners. Such findings of the learned Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are unexceptionable. No question of law arises in these petitions justifying grant-of leave to appeal, which are dismissed accordingly.