ABDUL GHAFFAR vs ZAIUR RAHIM And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding concurrent findings of the lower courts which decreed a declaratory suit filed by the respondents against the transfer of a disputed property through a Deed of Association, P.T.O., and P.T.D. in favour of the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the issue of limitation, specifically whether Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to render the respondents' suit time-barred. The Supreme Court noted that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents did not challenge the transfer instruments during his lifetime, and his silence and conduct gave rise to an inference of acceptance. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to consider all points arising from the case, while directing the maintenance of status quo pending final disposal.
- Whether Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to a suit challenging a transfer document and allied instruments?
- Does the silence and conduct of a predecessor-in-interest during his lifetime raise an inference of acceptance regarding a property transfer?
- Article 91, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is petition by Abdul Ghaffar seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 23-9-1989.
2. Abdul Rahim, the father of both Abdul Jabbar, predecessor-in-interest of present respondents Nos.1 to 3, and Abdul Ghaffar, the present petitioner, filed C.S. Form with the Settlement Authorities for the transfer of the disputed shop in his name. On 19-5-1973 Deed of Association purporting to be between Abdul Rahim and Abdul Jabbar was filed with the Settlement Authorities showing that Abdul Rahim had surrendered his full rights in favour of Abdul Ghaffar. An order was passed that if the Deed of Association was in order it may be acted upon. In pursuance of the said Deed of Association, P.T.O. Was issued in favour of Abdul Ghaffar on 27-11-1973. At this stage it may be stated that Abdul Rahim had died on 11-6-1973. Later, the P.T.D. Was also issued in favour of Abdul Ghaffar petitioner. On 13-4-1973 Ziaur Rahim and others, respondents Nos.1 to 3, heirs of Abdul Jabbar deceased, filed a suit for declaration that the Deed of Association, the P.T.O. And the P.T.D.
Issued in favour of Abdul Ghaffar petitioner were illegal, null and void and that they were entitled to inherit 1/4th of the property. The trial Court decreed the suit, whose findings were upheld by both the appellate and revisional Court.
3. On behalf of the petitioner the judgments of the three Courts below have been assailed primarily on the question of limitation. It is suggested that Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applies to the case and that suit of respondents Nos.1 to 3 was time-barred.
4. We notice that Abdul Jabbar, the predecessor-in-interest of Ziaur Rahim and others, respondents Nos.1 to 3, did. Not in his own lifetime challenge the P.T.O. And P.T.D. His silence and conduct leads to the inference as if he had accepted the transfer. In these circumstances, we would grant leave to appeal to consider all the points arising out of the case. The petitioner shall furnish security in the sum of Rs.5,000. The appeal shall be heard on the basis of the present record.
Parties are at liberty to file such further documents as they consider 6t and proper for the full and final disposal of the appeal. Status quo shall be maintained, till the final disposal of the appeal.
Cited by 1 case
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs JAMAL DIN and others 2000 CLC 305