MAHMOOD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HASAN And 7 Other
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision regarding a declaratory suit. The petitioner sought a declaration of ownership and joint possession of disputed land, challenging a sale deed executed on his behalf by his uncle in 1947, claiming it was void against his interest. The respondents contested the suit, raising defenses of limitation, insufficient court-fee, and estoppel, noting the petitioner's long-standing silence since 1947. The trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court concurrently dismissed the petitioner's suit. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the petitioner, who was a minor at the time of the 1947 sale, attained the age of majority in 1964. However, the suit was not filed until 1984. Consequently, the Court held that the suit was clearly barred by the law of limitation. Finding no substance in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the time-barred nature of the claim.
- Whether a suit challenging a sale deed executed during the plaintiff's minority is maintainable if filed twenty years after attaining the age of majority?
- Does a suit filed decades after the cause of action accrued, where the plaintiff attained majority long before filing, constitute a time-barred claim?
- Can a civil revision be maintained against concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the limitation period?
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4-6-1986, whereby his civil revision was dismissed.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff riled a daclaratory suit to the effect that he was owner in joint possession of the land in dispute with the respondents/defendants and the sale-deed executed on his behalf by his real uncle Hukam Din was void against his interest in the suit land. The suit was resisted by the respondents on the grounds of lapse of limitation, want of proper court-fee and estoppel was also pleaded indicating that ever since 1947, the petitioner/plaintiff did not raise any objection to-the sale under which the respondents were enjoying the exclusive ownership of the suit property. The learned trial Judge framed contesting issues on the pleadings of the parties and after recording evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the suit of the petitioner. Appeal against this order before the Addl. District Judge and subsequent civil revision before the High Court were also dismissed.
3. After hearing the learned counsel in support of this petition and perusal of the record, we have observed that the petitioner was minor when on his behalf the sale was made by his real uncle in favour of Nabi Bakhsh predecessor-in-interest of the respondents through a registered sale-deed dated 21-4-1947. Admittedly, the petitioner had become major in 1964 while the present suit was filed by him on 11-6-1984. The suit is clearly barred by time and all the Courts below have concurrently decided the case against the petitioner.
4. In view of the circumstances we do not find any substance in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- Yar Muhammad Khan and others vs Sajjad Abbas and others 2021 SCMR 1401, 2021 PSC 784
- NISAR MUHAMMAD KHAN and 5 others vs SAEEDULLAH KHAN and 16 otherss 2014 YLR 1218
- Mst. YASMIN BEGUM and 4 others vs FAZALURREHMAN and 13 others 2013 YLR 2581
- REHMAN vs YARA through L.Rs, and others 2004 SCMR 1502
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR and otherss' vs Begum MARYAM SALAMAT and others 2004 CLC 132