limitation in inheritance cases.



Applicability of law of limitation in inheritance cases.



**کہانی:**

عیسی خان کے انتقال کے بعد، ان کی زمین کا وراثت کا معاملہ اٹھتا ہے۔ عیسی خان کے ورثاء میں ان کا بیٹا عبد الرحمن اور دو بیٹیاں، مسٹ. مہرو اور مسٹ. افسرہ شامل تھیں۔ 1935 میں، عبد الرحمن کے نام پر وراثت کی ترمیم نمبر 327 منظور کی گئی، جس کے تحت ساری زمین اس کے نام کر دی گئی۔ 

1960-61 میں، زمین کا کچھ حصہ چھوٹے صنعتی ادارے نے خرید لیا اور عبد الرحمن نے اس کے بدلے معاوضہ حاصل کیا۔ عبد الرحمن نے زمین کی باقی ماندہ حصے کو بیچ دیا، اور یہ سب کام مسٹ. مہرو اور مسٹ. افسرہ کے علم میں تھا، لیکن انہوں نے کوئی قانونی کارروائی نہیں کی۔

2004 میں، عیسی خان کی دو بیٹیوں کی اولاد، جنہوں نے وراثت میں حصہ مانگنے کا فیصلہ کیا، عدالت میں مقدمہ دائر کرتی ہے۔ وہ دعویٰ کرتے ہیں کہ عبد الرحمن نے فراڈ کے ذریعے اپنی بہنوں کو وراثت سے خارج کر دیا اور زمین کی فروخت کے ذریعے ان کے حقوق پامال کیے۔

ٹرائل کورٹ نے ان کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا، مگر اپیلیٹ کورٹ اور بعد ازاں ہائی کورٹ نے اس فیصلے کو رد کر دیا۔ ان عدالتوں نے کہا کہ مقدمہ مدتِ سماعت کے تحت آتا ہے کیونکہ مسٹ. مہرو اور مسٹ. افسرہ نے دیر سے کارروائی کی تھی۔

سپریم کورٹ نے بھی اس فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا اور کہا کہ چونکہ مدتِ سماعت گزر چکی تھی، درخواست گزاروں کا مقدمہ مسترد کر دیا گیا۔ اس فیصلے نے یہ واضح کیا کہ وراثت کے حقوق پر وقت کی پابندیاں عائد ہوتی ہیں اور دیر سے کارروائی کرنے پر مقدمہ خارج ہو سکتا ہے۔
SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Present:
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Civil Petition No.262-P of 2017
(Against the order of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar
dated 10.4.2017, passed in C.R. No.411-P/2014)
Saadat Khan & others
...…. Petitioners
Versus
Shahid-ur-Rehman & others
……. Respondents
For the petitioners:
Mr. Manzoor Khan Khalil, ASC.
Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, AOR
 
 
For the respondents:
N.R.
Date of hearing:
23.09.2021
JUDGMENT
Syed Mansoor Ali Shah J.- The petitioners seek leave 
to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 
10.04.2017 (“impugned judgment”), whereby the High Court has 
upheld, in revision, the judgment of the appellate court non-suiting 
the petitioners on the issue of limitation. Although there are 
concurrent findings of the two courts below, on the issue of 
limitation against the petitioners but as the matter involves the 
enforcement of an alleged right of inheritance of some females, the 
predecessors of the petitioners, we are inclined to re-examine the 
issue of limitation, in the interest of justice, to satisfy ourselves as 
to the correctness of the said concurrent findings.
2.
Facts forming the background of the case are that one 
Isa Khan son of Hameedullah was the owner of the suit property, 
i.e., the then agriculture land measuring 19-Kanal 17-Marla. He 
died and his inheritance mutation No. 327 was sanctioned on 23 
March 1935 in favour of his son Abdur Rehman. In the year 1960-
61, some portion of the suit property was acquired by the Small 
Industries Corporation of West Pakistan, and the said Abdur 
Rehman received the compensation therefor. Later on, Abdur 
Rehman also died and respondents No. 1 to 5 being his sons and 
daughters, and respondent No.6 being his widow, inherited the 
remaining suit property. Respondents No. 1 to 6 sold out almost a
CP No.262-P/2017
2
 
of the remaining suit property to respondents No. 12 to 74 and 
others, who are now recorded as owners-in-possession of the suit 
property in very small shares measuring in Marla and Sarsai, in the 
revenue record (Exh-P1).
3.
It was in the year 2004 that the petitioners instituted a 
suit on 19 November 2004 praying for a declaration that inheritance 
mutation No. 327 sanctioned on 23 March 1935 in favour of Abdur 
Rehman, the predecessor of respondents No.1 to 6, and the 
subsequent inheritance mutation in favour of respondents No. 1 to 
6 and the further transfers made on the basis of those inheritance 
mutations, in favour of respondents No. 12 to 74 were void and
ineffective against their rights. They asserted that Isa Khan had left 
one son, Abdur Rehman, and two daughters, Mst. Mehro and Mst. 
Afsro, as his legal heirs but Abdur Rehman fraudulently got 
sanctioned inheritance mutation No. 327 in his favour excluding his 
sisters from the inheritance of their father; that the said Mst. Mehro 
and Mst. Afsro daughters of Isa Khan had died, and they and 
respondents No. 7 to 11, who did not join them as plaintiffs in the 
suit, were their legal heirs; that being legal heirs of Mst. Mehro and 
Mst. Afsro, they and respondents No. 7 to 11 were owners of the suit 
property to the extent of their share; and that they had, time and 
again, asked the respondents to accept their entitlement and get 
corrected the revenue record to the extent of their share in the suit 
property, but they first evaded the matter and then flatly refused to 
do so, hence the need to institute the suit arose.
4.
Respondents No. 1 to 6 contested the suit and claimed 
that the inheritance mutation No. 327 was correctly sanctioned in 
favour of their predecessor, Abdur Rehman, in the year 1935 as per 
the then prevailing law; that since 1935 their predecessor, and after 
his death they, had been in possession of the suit property as the 
exclusive owner to the knowledge of the petitioners; and that the 
fact of acquisition of a portion of the suit property by the Small 
Industries Corporation and receiving of the compensation by their 
predecessor for that acquisition was in knowledge of the petitioners, 
therefore, their suit was time-barred.
5.
The trial court decreed the suit by its judgment dated 
28.01.2012, and on the issue of limitation held that the limitation 
does not apply where a person seeks to enforce his right of 
CP No.262-P/2017
3
 
inheritance in the estate of his deceased predecessor. Respondents
No. 1 to 6 appealed in District Court. The appellate court noticed 
that Mst Mehro and Mst. Afsro, the predecessor of the petitioners,
had not challenged the inheritance mutation in their lifetime, 
despite knowledge of receiving the compensation by Abdur Rehman, 
the predecessor of respondents No. 1 to 6, in the year 1960-61, for 
the acquisition of some land out of the suit property by the Small 
Industries Estate and the sale of a major portion of the suit property 
by respondents No. 1 to 6. Keeping in view these facts and while 
relying upon two unreported judgments and one reported judgment 
(Abdul Haq v. Surraya Begum 2002 SCMR 1330) of this Court, the 
appellate court decided the issues as to cause of action, estoppel 
and limitation against the petitioners and reversing the judgment 
and decree passed by the trial court, dismissed the suit. The 
petitioners then agitated their grievance against the judgment of the 
appellate court in the High Court by filing a revision petition.
6.
The High Court also took up the issues as to cause of 
action, estoppel and limitation, examined the evidence available on 
record relating thereto, and upheld the decision of the appellate 
court on these issues. The High Court relied upon the judgments of
this Court reported as Kala Khan v. Rab Nawaz 2004 SCMR 517, Lal 
Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf PLD 2011 SC 657, Muhammad Rustam 
v. Makhan Jan 2013 SCMR 299, Mst Grana v. Sahib Kasmala PLD 
2014 SC 167 and Ghulam Abbas v. Muhammad Shafi 2016 SCMR 
1403.
7.
The petitioners have impugned the concurrent findings 
of the appellate court and the High Court on the question of 
limitation. Their learned counsel has submitted that the trial court 
correctly applied the principle that the limitation does not apply in 
cases of inheritance, while the appellate court and the High Court 
erred in non-suiting the petitioners on the ground of limitation. He 
has relied upon judgments of this Court reported as Ghulam 
Ali v. Ghulam Sarwar PLD 1990 SC 1, Namdara v. Sahibzada 1998 
SCMR 996, Shahro v. Fatima PLD 1998 SC 1512, Muhammad 
Iqbal v. Allah Bachaya 2005 SCMR 1447 and Peer Baksh v. Mst. 
Khanzadi 2016 SCMR 1417.
8.
As the High Court for applying and the counsel for the 
petitioners for opposing the application of, the bar of limitation to 
CP No.262-P/2017
4
 
the present case have relied upon the judgments of this Court, we 
have deeply considered the ratio of the said judgments as well as 
other relevant judgments1 to understand as if there is any conflict of
opinions recorded therein. We have found no such conflict, which 
we shall explain hereunder.
9.
We may say at the very outset that in view of the 
provisions of the residuary Article 120 of Schedule-I to the 
Limitation Act 1908, there can hardly be any suit to which the bar 
of limitation does not apply. As per the said Article a suit for which 
no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule, the 
period of limitation for that suit is six years from the time when the 
right to sue accrues. No specific Article of Schedule-I to the 
Limitation Act provides a period of limitation for a suit instituted by 
a person, under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, for 
declaration of his ownership rights to any property against a person 
denying his said rights; therefore, the residuary Article 120 applies 
to such suit. A suit instituted by a female legal heir for declaration 
of her ownership rights as to the property left by her deceased father 
in his inheritance, against her brother who denies her rights is thus 
governed by the provisions of Article 120. To decide whether such a 
suit is barred by limitation, the six-year period of limitation provided 
by Article 120 is to be counted from the time when the right to sue 
for declaration accrues as provided therein. The question, when the
right to sue for declaration has accrued in a case, depends upon the 
facts and circumstances of that case, as it accrues when the 
defendant denies (actually) or is interested to deny (threatens) the 
rights of the plaintiff as per Section 42 of the Specific relief Act 
1877. The actual denial of rights gives rise to a compulsory cause of 
action and obligates the plaintiff to institute the suit for declaration 
of his rights, if he wants to do so, within the prescribed period of 
limitation; while in case of a threatened denial of rights, it is the 
option of the plaintiff to institute such a suit on a particular threat. 
On the actual denial of rights, the cause of action and the 
consequent right to sue matures for instituting the suit for 
declaration; whereas every threatened denial of rights gives rise to a 
fresh cause of action, and thus a fresh right to sue accrues on such 
a denial. This Court has, therefore, decided the question of 
 
1 Ghulam Qasim v. Razia Begum PLD 2021 SC 812; Gharana v. Sahib Kamala PLD 2014 SC 167; 
Muhammed Rustam v. Makhan Jan 2013 SCMR 299; Ata Muhammed v. Maula Baksh 2007 SCMR 
1446; Aslam v. Kamalzai PLD 1974 SC 207
CP No.262-P/2017
5
 
limitation in the cases relied upon by the High Court and referred to 
by the counsel for the petitioners, in the peculiar facts and 
circumstances of each case.
10.
Because of the special characteristics of their 
relationship, the criterion for determining the actual denial of a cosharer’s rights as to joint property by the other co-sharer is different 
from the one that is applied between strangers. Co-sharers have a
relationship of trust and support for each other. Possession of joint 
property with one co-sharer is considered to be for and on behalf of 
all the co-sharers. A co-sharer who is not in actual possession is 
considered to be in constructive possession of the joint property. 
Each co-sharer protects the joint property against trespassers for
the benefit of all the co-sharers. Even if one co-sharer acquires
possession of some portion of the joint property in consequence of 
legal proceedings initiated by him against a trespasser, he is 
deemed to be in possession of that portion of the joint property, on 
behalf of all the co-sharers. Against this backdrop, the actual denial
of a co-sharer’s rights as to joint property by the other co-sharer is 
not to be readily inferred. Actual denial of a co-sharer’s rights by the 
other co-sharer may occur when the latter does something explicit 
in denial of the former’s rights. A mere oral negation, even made 
several times, of each other’s rights by the co-sharers on different 
disputes as to the use and sharing of the profits of the joint 
property, but without doing any overt act to oust a co-sharer from 
the ownership of the joint property, cannot be treated as an actual 
denial of the rights and thus does not necessitate to sue for 
declaration of ownership rights.
11.
The obligations of the brothers to their sisters, as cosharers of joint property, are further augmented when viewed in the 
light of the Islamic law and jurisprudence as expounded by this 
Court in Ghulam Ali. Because of the fiduciary and protecting relation 
of the brothers to their sisters, they cannot claim their possession of 
the joint property adverse to the rights of their sisters; possession of 
the brothers is taken to be the possession of their sisters. Mere 
omission to pay a share of the profits or produce of the joint 
property to their sisters by the brothers in possession of the joint 
property does not in itself constitute a repudiation of the sisters
CP No.262-P/2017
6
 
rights, nor does a wrong entry as to the inheritance rights in the 
revenue record oust the sisters from their ownership of the joint 
property as the devolution of the ownership of the property on legal 
heirs of a person takes place under the Islamic law of inheritance
immediately on the death of that person without any intervention of 
anyone and without the sanction of the inheritance mutation in the 
revenue record. The position is, however, different when the 
brothers in possession of the joint property make a fraudulent sale 
or gift deed or get sanctioned some mutation, whether of sale or gift 
etc, in the revenue record claiming that their sisters have 
transferred their share in the joint property to them, or when they 
on the basis of a wrong inheritance mutation start selling out or 
otherwise disposing of the joint property claiming them to be the 
exclusive owners thereof. In such circumstances, the brothers by 
their overt act expressly repudiate the rights of their sisters in the 
joint property, and oust them from the ownership of the joint 
property. Their acts are, therefore, a clear and actual denial of the 
rights of the sisters, which give rise to a compulsory cause of action 
and obligates the sisters to institute the suit for declaration of their 
rights, if they want to do so, within the prescribed period of 
limitation.
12.
Although, by the said acts of the brothers, the right 
accrues to the sisters to sue for declaration of their rights, but if 
they by means of fraud are kept from the knowledge of those overt 
acts, the time limit of six years provided in Article 120 for instituting 
the suit for declaration against brothers or any person claiming 
through them otherwise than in good faith and for a valuable 
consideration, is to be computed from the time when the fraud of 
the brothers first became known to the sisters, by virtue of the 
provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The “fraud”
contemplated by Section 18 means suppression of those acts or 
transactions that give rise to the cause of action from coming into 
the knowledge of the plaintiff. A deliberate concealment of facts 
intended to prevent discovery of the right to sue is also a “fraud”
within the meaning of the term used in this Section, but an open act 
of a party cannot be said to be a fraudulent act of concealment and 
is therefore not covered by this Section. The benefit of Section 18 is, 
however, not available against any person who though claims 
CP No.262-P/2017
7
 
through the defrauding party but is a transferee in good faith and 
for a valuable consideration. That is why this Court has treated 
differently the two types of cases: (i) where the joint property is still 
in possession of the defrauding brothers or their legal heirs; and (ii) 
where the joint property has been alienated further to third persons
- the transferees in good faith and for a valuable consideration.
13.
We have gone through the facts of the present case in 
light of the above principles regarding the calculation of the period 
of limitation. We find that the acts of acquisition of a part of the suit 
property by the Small Industries Estate and receiving of the 
compensation therefor by Abdur Rehman, the predecessor of 
respondents No. 1 to 6, in the year 1960-61 were open acts and
were also in the knowledge of Mst. Mehro and Mst. Afsro, the 
predecessor of the petitioners. This fact has been admitted by 
petitioner No.1, Saadat Khan, when he appeared in the witness box 
as PW-5. He further said that they had demanded their share in the 
compensation amount from Abdur Rehman but he had refused to 
pay. The act of receiving compensation for the acquired portion of 
the suit property by Abdur Rehman was equal to selling that portion 
of the suit property by claiming him to be the exclusive owner 
thereof. It was his express overt act whereby he repudiated the 
rights of his sisters, Mst. Mehro and Mst. Afsro, in the suit property
and ousted them from the ownership thereof. By the said act of
Abdur Rehman, the right accrued to his sisters to sue for 
declaration of their rights, and the six-year limitation period 
provided in Article 120 started to run from the date of knowledge of 
Mst. Mehro and Mst. Afsro, of that act of Abdur Rehman and 
expired in the year 1967-68. For when once limitation time had 
begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to sue could stop 
it as per Section 9 of the Limitation Act. Similar was the effect of the 
acts of selling out the remaining portion of the suit property by 
respondents No. 1 to 6 to respondents No.12 to 74 and others. The
limitation period having thus expired in the lifetime of Mst. Mehro 
and Mst. Afsro, it cannot start over again for their successors, the 
present petitioners, in view of the definition of the term “plaintiff” 
provided in Section 2(8) of the Limitation Act, which provides that 
“plaintiff” includes any person from or through whom a plaintiff 
derives his right to sue. Because of the said definition of “plaintiff”, 
CP No.262-P/2017
8
 
it was the knowledge of Mst. Mehro and Mst. Afsro that had 
triggered the period of limitation to run not only against them but 
also against their successors, i.e., the petitioners who derive their
right to sue from them. The appellate court and the High Court
have, thus, correctly decided the issue of limitation against the 
petitioners.
14.
For all what has been discussed above, the present 
petition for leave to appeal is found meritless; it is, therefore, 
dismissed and leave declined. 
Islamabad,
23rd September, 2021.
Approved for reporting
Iqbal

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.













 



 







































 































Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Property ki taqseem ,Warasat main warson ka hisa

Punishment for violation of section 144 crpc | dafa 144 in Pakistan means,kia hai , khalaf warzi per kitni punishment hu gi،kab or kese lagai ja ja sakti hai.

Bachon ki custody of minors after divorce or separation