Pakistan Case LawMalik MUHAMMAD KABIR Versus Haji SHAH JEHAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of three lower courts which dismissed the petitioner's suit for possession of a plot on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner, having acquired the property via a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) in 1962, initiated a suit for possession in 1970. The core legal question is whether the suit was barred by time, specifically considering the statutory relationship between a transferee and an occupant under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner argued that if the occupant's possession was long-standing, a statutory landlord-tenant relationship was created upon the transfer, and the occupant's repudiation of this title necessitated a decree for possession. Alternatively, if the occupant entered possession after the 1962 transfer, the 1970 suit was timely. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the legal implications of the statutory relationship created by the Act and the timing of the occupant's possession require further examination to determine if the suit was indeed time-barred.
- Does the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 automatically create a statutory landlord-tenant relationship between the transferee and the occupant?
- If an occupant repudiates the statutory title of a landlord created under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, is the landlord entitled to a decree for possession?
- Does the limitation period for a suit for possession differ depending on whether the occupant's possession predates or postdates the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The plot in dispute was transferred to the plaintiff/petitioner vide P.T.D. Dated 2-4-1962. By an amended plaint in a suit instituted on 30-9-1970 the petitioner sought possession of the property from defendant/respondent. All the three Courts dismissed the suit of the petitioner "on the ground that it was barred by time.
2.In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the appellant contended that whatever be taken as the date of the possession of the respondent, the suit was within time. If the possession be taken to be 30 to 40 years old, as the three Courts have held, then under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, statutory relationship of landlord and tenant was automatically established between the transferee and the occupant on transfer of property in 1962. If the occupant repudiated the statutory title of the landlord, then the suit for possession had to be decreed. If the occupant came into possession after the transfer in 1962, then the suit instituted in 1970 was well within time.
Leave to appeal is granted to examine this aspect of the case. Security in the sum of Rs.5,000.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Afzal Zullah3,959 judgments
- Shafiur Rahman2,457 judgments
- Ali Hussain Qazilbash1,059 judgments