KARAM ELAHI and 11 others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P.
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside the decisions of various Revenue Authorities regarding the restitution of mortgaged land. The core legal question concerned the starting point of the limitation period for filing a suit for the restitution of mortgaged property. The Revenue Authorities had previously dismissed the respondent's application, calculating the limitation period from the date the mortgage transaction was entered into the mutation record (20-9-1925). Conversely, the High Court, relying on precedent, held that the limitation period commenced from the date the mutation was formally attested (2-10-1925). Upon review, the Supreme Court found the petitioners' reliance on conflicting case law distinguishable and affirmed the High Court's position. The Court held that the right to sue for the restitution of mortgaged land accrues only upon the formal sanctioning or attestation of the relevant mutation. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the suit was within the limitation period, and refused leave to appeal.
- Does the limitation period for the restitution of mortgaged land commence from the date of the entry of the mutation or the date of its attestation?
- When does the right to sue for the restitution of mortgaged land accrue under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Article 148, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This petition directed against the order dated 19-2-1995 passed by Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad in a writ petition, arises from the facts that on 29- 9-1985 Muhammad Afzal Khan respondent No,4 filed application for the restitution of mortgaged land against Karam Elahi and others petitioners before the Collector, Mansehra. The application was resisted amongst others on the ground of limitation. The Collector dismissed the application on 14-12-1987 as barred by time. The appeal filed by Muhammad Afzal Khan against the order of the Collector was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 15-9-1988. The revision filed by him against the order of the Additional Commissioner was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 7-11- 1990. The aforementioned authorities were of the view that the limitation started from 20-9-1925 when the entry of the transaction of the mortgage was made in the Mutation by the Patwari so the suit filed on 29-9-1985 after more than sixty years o the entry in the Mutation was barred by time.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, Muhammad Afzal Khan respondent No,4 filed Writ Petition in the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench Abbottabad on 23-11-1991 praying that the aforesaid orders of the Revenue Authorities be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Relying on the case Abdul Hanan and 8 others v. Kapoor Khan and 16 others (1970 SCM R 633), the High Court found that the starting point of limitation in the case shall be from 2-10-1925 when the mutation was attested and not from the date of entry of Mutation.
2. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Jangi v. Jhanda and others (PLD 1961 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 34) to contend that the High Court was wrong in holding that the limitation shall run from the date of attestation of the mutation. Learned counsel has argued that the well-reasoned orders of the Revenue Authorities have been interfered by the High Court without legal justification.
3. Having carefully examined the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the judgment relied upon by the High Court we find that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is quite distinguishable whereas the judgment relied on by the High Court is on all force. On careful examination of Article 148 of the Limitation Act, we are also of the view that in the instant case the right to sue for the restitution of the mortgaged land accrued on 2-10-1925 when the relevant mutation was sanctioned.
4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Khan Afsar vs Mst. Qudrat Jan (widow) and others 2023 PLD Supreme Court 359
- Khan Afsar vs Mst. Qudrat Jan widow and others, Abdul Latif and others 2023 SCP 101
- Khan Afsar vs Mst. Qudrat Jan widow and others 2023 PLJ SC 456