ABDUL MAJID and 5 others vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAFrespondent
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent, challenging the timeliness of the suit. The core legal question was whether the suit was filed within the period of limitation, specifically whether the limitation period commenced from the date of the oral sale (alleged to be 1960) or from the date the mutation was attested (9-10-1970). The petitioners, as vendees, contended that they had taken actual physical possession of the land long before the mutation was attested, citing Khasra Girdawari entries from 1969 as evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the High Court and the trial court, which had rejected the petitioners' reliance on the Khasra Girdawari entries due to the significant delay in their creation relative to the alleged date of sale. Consequently, the Court held that the suit was filed within time, as it was brought within one year of the mutation attestation. The decision reinforces that evidentiary documents created long after an alleged event may be insufficient to establish the date of possession for limitation purposes in pre-emption matters.
- Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit based on an oral sale commence from the date of the alleged sale or the date of mutation attestation?
- Can Khasra Girdawari entries created years after an alleged sale be relied upon to establish the date of physical possession for the purpose of limitation?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent and the only question for consideration is whether it was brought within time.
2. The petitioners are the vendees. The sale in their favour was an oral one. According to them the sale took place in 1960. However, that may be, the mutation with regard to the sale was attested on 9-10-1970. The suit was brought within a year of the attestation of the mutation.
3. If the attestation of the mutation is treated as the starting point for limitation the suit would admittedly be within time. However, the case of the petitioners is that immediately after the sale and long before the attestation of the mutation they took actual physical possession of the land purchased by them. In support of their claim they referred to certain entries in the Khasra Girdawari relating to the year 1969. The High Court and the learned trial Court were not impressed by these entries, coming on the record, as they did about nine years after the alleged date of sale. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we see no reason to take a different view in the matter. Leave is refused.