Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL GHAFFAR VS Respondent: ZAIUR RAHIM And Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Rustam S. Sidhwa Title: ABDUL GHAFFAR vs ZAIUR RAHIM And Other Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 596-R of 1989 C.R. No. 314-D of 1989 Date of Judgment:1990-02-26 Reported As: 1991 SCMR 451 Result: Leave granted
Judgment ORDER RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is petition by Abdul Ghaffar seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 23-9-1989. 2. Abdul Rahim, the father of both Abdul Jabbar, predecessor-in-interest of present respondents Nos.1 to 3, and Abdul Ghaffar, the present petitioner, filed C.S. Form with the Settlement Authorities for the transfer of the disputed shop in his name. On 19-5-1973 Deed of Association purporting to be between Abdul Rahim and Abdul Jabbar was filed with the Settlement Authorities showing that Abdul Rahim had surrendered his full rights in favour of Abdul Ghaffar. An order was passed that if the Deed of Association was in order it may be acted upon. In pursuance of the said Deed of Association, P.T.O. Was issued in favour of Abdul Ghaffar on 27-11-1973. At this stage it may be stated that Abdul Rahim had died on 11-6-1973. Later, the P.T.D. Was also issued in favour of Abdul Ghaffar petitioner. On 13-4-1973 Ziaur Rahim and others, respondents Nos.1 to 3, heirs of Abdul Jabbar deceased, filed a suit for declaration that the Deed of Association, the P.T.O. And the P.T.D. Issued in favour of Abdul Ghaffar petitioner were illegal, null and void and that they were entitled to inherit 1/4th of the property. The trial Court decreed the suit, whose findings were upheld by both the appellate and revisional Court. 3. On behalf of the petitioner the judgments of the three Courts below have been assailed primarily on the question of limitation. It is suggested that Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applies to the case and that suit of respondents Nos.1 to 3 was time-barred. 4. We notice that Abdul Jabbar, the predecessor-in-interest of Ziaur Rahim and others, respondents Nos.1 to 3, did. Not in his own lifetime challenge the P.T.O. And P.T.D. His silence and conduct leads to the inference as if he had accepted the transfer. In these circumstances, we
---
## Page 2
would grant leave to appeal to consider all the points arising out of the case. The petitioner shall furnish security in the sum of Rs.5,000. The appeal shall be heard on the basis of the present record. Parties are at liberty to file such further documents as they consider 6t and proper for the full and final disposal of the appeal. Status quo shall be maintained, till the final disposal of the appeal.