ADAM KHAN and others vs ZARIN SHAH and others
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal arising from declaratory suits filed by mortgagees regarding land classified as evacuee property. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the law of limitation applies to such property, specifically whether mortgagees could acquire full title and ownership rights through the passage of time. The High Court had previously determined that the mortgagees' interest in the property had been extinguished, leaving them only with a charge created by law, based on the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1958 and the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the mortgagees' interest was limited to a statutory charge and that the law of limitation did not operate to confer full ownership rights upon them in this context. The Court relied on established precedents to confirm that the specific statutory framework governing evacuee property overrides general claims of title acquisition by mortgagees through limitation, thereby refusing leave to appeal.
- Does the law of limitation apply to evacuee property to allow mortgagees to acquire full title?
- What is the nature of a mortgagee's interest in land that has become evacuee property?
- Does the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 extinguish the proprietary interest of a mortgagee in evacuee property?
- Section 14-A, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
- Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1958
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---These petitions for leave to appeal have arisen out of declaratory suits by mortgagees of land which was held to be evacuee property. Although in C.P.224-P of 1991 learned counsel for the petitioners candidly admitted that the suit land had become evacuee property and thus, according to him, the evacuee interest was involved therein, the learned counsel for the petitioners in C.P.215-P of 1991 after having made a statement that the property was not evacuee nor evacuee mortgagees' interest was involved therein when called upon to substantiate this statement could not do so. There is no reason for us to ignore the assumption made by the High Court in both the cases that the property, involved in this case had become evacuee. The next crucial question which wises is; whether, the law of limitation as contended by the learned counsel in C.P.215-P of 1991 would operate regarding such property which had become evacuee and in which petitioners had mortgagee rights--according to them the law of limitation was applicable and that on the expiry of the specified period, the mortgagees would be entitled to be clothed with full title and right of ownership in it. The High Court has referred to the provisions contained in the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1958 together with section 14-A of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, for coming to the conclusion that the mortgagees' interest in the property as mortgagees had been extinguished and that the only interest they had was of a charge created by law. This view is supported by two judgments of this Court. They are Subedar Muhammad Tufail v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others 1970 SCM R 73 and Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Sharif 1981 SCM R 550.
2. ' When faced with this legal position none of the learned counsel could advance the cases any further. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- NADIR ALI and others vs Mst..BEGUM BIBI and others 2003 PLD Lahore 180