Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.462 of 1982, decided on 5th April, 1986.

(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 9‑2‑1982 passed in Civil Revision No.184‑79/BWP)

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Limitation‑‑Petitioner when minor was gifted land by his father who subsequently sold land in favour of other respondents‑‑Petitioner's suit for declaring sale illegal and void dismissed by Courts belows on ground of limitation‑‑Petitioner having knowledge of sale of land after having attained majority but not filing suit till long after expiry of period of limitation from such knowledge‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Mirza Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 9‑3‑1982 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Civil Revision Petition arising out of a land suit, was dismissed.

The petitioner had instituted a suit in 1979 with the assertion that the land in disputed having been gifted by his father (respondent No. l) to him in 1952 the same was subsequently in 1957 sold by registered sale‑deed in favour of the other respondents, therefore, this sale was illegal and void. It was further asserted in the plaint that the petitioner was a minor in 1952, he attained maturity in 1966 when his mother was divorced and he was threatened that he would be deprived of his property. This probably led to the dispute between the parties, however, even then the petitioner did not file. the suit till 1979.

The respondents took up the plea before the trial Court that the suit was badly time‑barred and that the plaint was liable to be rejected for non‑payment of proper court‑fee. Both the pleas were upheld by the learned trial Court. In First Appeal, however, the learned District Court reversed the finding of the learned trial Court on the question of Court‑fee, but upheld that the suit was time‑barred and accordingly also maintained the rejection of the plaint for that reason under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. The petitioner then moved a Civil Revision in the High Court which having been dismissed he has sought leave to appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Article 91 and not Article 120 of the Limitation Act would govern the case and that being so, he further argued that the time would start running against the petitioner only after he had attained the knowledge of the sale. And if an opportunity would have been afforded to the petitioner to lead evidence on the question of knowledge he would have succeeded to show that he had no knowledge till few days before 1979.

Essentially the question raised is one of fact on which the High Court has made the following observation:

"The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit because it cannot be spelt out from his pleadings that he had no knowledge about the alienation of the land in dispute made by his father in 1957 in favour of the contesting respondents

We also asked the petitioner who was present in person as to whether before the institution of the suit and after the disputed sale the contesting respondents had taken over the possession of the suit‑land or not, to which he initially gave a hesitating reply that his father used to cultivate the land, but ultimately stated that the possession had been taken over by the purchasers. This would show that the knowledge of the petitioner. The purchasers having taken the possession he would not be able to show that he had no knowledge about the sale for 13 years after attaining maturity even if it is believed that he attained it in 1966 and not in 1958 as asserted by the respondents.

After hearing the learned counsel we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.

M.Y.H. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.