Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

P L D 2025 Lahore 581 Before Khalid Ishaq, J MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ---Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 17 others---Respondents Writ Petition No. 10459 of 2019, decided on 23rd April, 2025. (a) Gift--- ----Registered gift deed, challenge to---Inheritance claims---Limitation, applicability of---Subsequent third-party transfers on the basis of gift deed---Gift deed not challenged in lifetime---Effect---Inheritance claims must overcome limitation unless exceptional circumstances---Exceptional circumstances where limitation did not apply in inheritance cases stated---The pivotal question under consideration in the instant matter was as to whether, in the realm of inheritance claims, the bar of limitation retained its binding force and whether a legal heir could successfully challenge a decades-old registered gift and subsequent third-party transfers on the basis of inheritance, without first overcoming the statutory bar of limitation, particularly where the predecessor-in-interest, during their lifetime, neither contested the transaction nor asserted any legal right thereto ---Petitioner along with respondent No. 16, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against a registered gift deed dated 03.09.1981, executed by his maternal grandfather (the original owner) in favor of his uncles (respondents Nos. 7-10) regarding some ancestral land---After the gift deed, respondents 7-10 sold the property to third parties (respondents 1-6) via registered sale deeds in 1984, and relevant mutations were sanctioned accordingly---During proceedings of the suit the contesting defendants filed application under section O. VII, R. 11 of C.P.C. which was disposed of by the Trial Court by completely ignoring the third party rights and questions of waiver, acquiesce and limitation---Being aggrieved of the Trial Court order the contesting respondents preferred civil revision petition under S. 115, C.P.C. which was allowed vide the impugned decree and consequently the plaint was rejected being barred by limitation---Held: It was not in all cases of inheritance that the question of limitation became irrelevant---In various claims of inheritance brought by female legal heirs against their brothers/male heirs, the question of limitation could not be ignored in every such case and such question of limitation was dependent upon facts and circumstance of each case---The impugned gift deed was challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff on 24.11.2015, after 34 years of the impugned gift deed and 06 years after the death of Mst. "SB" (real sister of respondents Nos. 7-10)---The present petitioner/ plaintiff had not inherited anything qua his claim on the basis of his relationship with his deceased mother Mst. "SB" as she did not leave behind any inheritance with respect to the suit property---Not only was the impugned gift deed not challenged within her lifetime, the subsequent transactions of sales to third parties, evidenced by registered instruments were not challenged either---If a predecessor did not challenge a transaction in his/her lifetime, which transaction purported to deprive the predecessor of his/her share and third party rights had been created, simple claim on the basis of inheritance would not absolve the question of limitation---The lack of challenge by the donor within the lifetime was fatal and the bar of limitation would accordingly apply---The question of limitation could not be dubbed irrelevant in every claim of inheritance---Only in the cases of exceptional facts, the question of limitation had not been treated as a statutory bar against the claims of inheritance---Those exceptional cases may be summed up in the following terms: i. Cases filed by female heirs, within their lifetime, claiming fraud and misrepresentation played against them qua the immoveable property left behind by their predecessor in interest; ii. Cases where it is pleaded and proved that the deprived female heir(s) were being paid some proportionate share from the income/lease of the immoveable property in question; iii. Cases where a co-sharer has successfully pleaded and proved that the rival heir or co-sharer was in deemed possession of immoveable property on behalf of all other heirs/siblings; iv. Cases where no third-party rights have been created in the immoveable property, which is/was subject matter of undisputed inheritance; v. Cases where the elements of acquiescence and waiver are absent on the part of the claimant legal heir or his/her predecessor in interest---The question of limitation could neither be ignored in every claim based on purported rights of inheritance nor it was permissible for the litigants to lay a statute barred challenge by couching the relief in the form of an inheritance claim---However, under the few exceptions, where a female was deprived of her share in the immoveable property of her predecessor, limitation would not be a question against her claim of inheritance where the female had successfully pleaded all the ingredients of fraud being played upon her while sanctioning the inheritance mutation by excluding her from inheritance---The limitation would not be an obstacle in the case of inheritance as where the fact of claimant lady being deprived from the inherited property by way of impugned mutation was concealed from her, however,she pleaded and proved that she was being paid her share of income from the property and once the same was denied, she brought the suit within her lifetime---A claim of inheritance must cross the bridge of limitation, waiver and acquiescence---An unchecked tendency of encouraging a relief in the guise of inheritance was not warranted under the law, particularly when the property in issue changed hands and the slumber of a purported claimant of inheritance crystalized valuable rights in favour of third parties---The encouragement of such claims and long drawn trials in statute barred suits was counter productive for genuine and bona fide claims of female heirs---In the instant case, predecessor in interest of the petitioner/plaintiff (Mst. "SB") never voiced any grievance against the impugned mutation; even on her demise in 2009, her legal heirs kept a mum for almost six years despite being resident of same village, and suddenly woke up from slumber and filed the suit in November 2015, which was not permissible under the law---There was no substance in the petition which was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Rustam and another v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others 2013 SCMR 299; Mushtaq Ul Aarifin and others v. Mumtaz Muhamamd and others 2022 SCMR 55; Mst. Grana through Legal Heirs and others v. Sahib Kamala Bibi and others PLD 2014 SC 167; Lal Khan through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heirs PLD 2011 SC 657; Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh and others 2007 SCMR 1446; Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1; Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others PLD 2022 SC 353; Syed Kausar Ali Shah and others v. Syed Farhat Hussain Shah and others 2022 SCMR 1558; Abdul Haq and another v. Mst. Surrya Begum and others 2002 SCMR 1330; Taj Muhammad Khan through L.Rs. and another v. Mst. Munawar Jan and 2 others 2009 SCMR 598; Saadat Khan and others v. Shahid-Ur-Rehman and others PLD 2023 SC 362; Shabla and others v. Ms. Jahan Afroz Khilat and others 2020 SCMR 352; Mohammad Boota (Deceased) through L.Rs., and others v. Mst. Fatima daughter of Gohar Ali and others 2023 SCMR 1901 and Noor Din (Deceased) through LRs v. Pervaiz Akhtar and others 2023 SCMR 1928 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.100---Gift---Inheritance---Rejection of plaint---Plaint barred by law---Recording of evidence---Scope---Plaint that is clearly barred by limitation on its face must be rejected summarily---Duty of courts to act suo motu on limitation---Frivolous and fictitious claims to be nipped in the bud at the outset---Limitation runs even against void order---Presumption of authenticity attached to 34 year old gift deed---When the plaint is barred by any law on the face of it, recording of evidence would be a futile exercise and would amount to encouraging the abuse---Where on the plain reading of the plaint, it can be clearly seen that the suit is patently barred by limitation, no evidence is required---To plead that a plaint cannot be rejected because of the suit being barred by limitation/law, without recording evidence, is to plead against the mandate of law as contained in O. VII, R. 11 C.P.C., which essentially requires the court to reject the plaint which appears from its contents to be barred by limitation---Aggrieved person has to pursue his legal remedies with diligence and if a suit is beyond limitation, the delay of each and every day consumed for approaching the court beyond the period of limitation has to be explained---In the instant case the plaint on the face of it failed to explain the delay of a period of 34 years---The contents of the plaint failed to set up a case in a manner which rendered the question of limitation as a mixed question of law and fact---Mere reading of the contents of the plaint made it abundantly clear that it was statute barred and was liable to be dismissed in terms of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C without employing valuable judicial resources and time of the Trial Court---By specifically incorporating the provision in terms of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C, the legislature has empowered the court with an independent suo motu and sua sponte power to examine the plaint by using its wisdom---The courts always nip a frivolous suit in the bud, by rejecting such frivolous, fictitious and untenable claims in order to retain courts docket and time for more serious claims---Non-actionable plaint or suit is a non-starter and in the interest of administration of justice and good judicial governance, it is best if such plaints are dismissed at the earliest---Keeping in view the mandatory provision of S. 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908, it is duty of every court and forum itself to look into the question of limitation irrespective of the fact whether any objection in this regard has been raised or not---Limitation runs even against a void order and a void order too has to be challenged within limitation---In the instant case, there was no justification at the outset merely by considering the averments of the plaint to overlook the delay of 34 years---When Mst. "SB" did not challenge the impugned gift deed in her life time despite third party transfers through registered deeds, petitioner/plaintiff had no right to claim inheritance of Mst. "SB"---Under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 a presumption was attached to the impugned gift deed which was 34 years old document at the time of its challenge before the Trial Court---In the instant case, predecessor in interest of the petitioner/plaintiff (Mst. "SB") never voiced any grievance against the Impugned mutation; even on her demise in 2009, her legal heirs kept a mum for almost six years despite being resident of same village, and suddenly woke up from slumber and filed the suit in November 2015, which was not permissible under the law---There was no substance in the petition which was dismissed, in circumstances.

Agha Syed Mushtaque Ali Shah v. Mst. Bibi Gul Jan and others 2016 SCMR 910; Fatima Moeen v. Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura 1992 SCMR 1199; Mst. Gul Nisa v. Muhammad Arif 1996 SCMR 1239; Haji Abdul Sattar v. Farooq Inayat 2013 SCMR 1493; Irshad Ali v. Sajjad Ali PLD 1995 SC 629; Muhammad Afzal v. Muhammad Hayat 1994 SCMR 12; Haji Abdul Karim and others v. Messers Florida Builders Pvt. Ltd . PLD 2012 SC 247; Saqib Ali v. Government of Punjab and others 2023 PLC (C.S.) 310; Shahin Shah v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Irrigation Department, Peshawar and others 2022 SCMR 1810; Lal Khan through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heirs PLD 2011 SC 657; Qaisar Mushtaq Ahmad v. Controller of Examination and others PLD 2011 SC 174; Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmad and others PLD 1985 SC 153; Ahsan Ali and others v. District Judge and others PLD 1969 SC 167; Syed Iftikhar Hussain v. Ijaz Ahmad Cheema and another 1996 SCMR 943; Dilmir v. Ghulam Muhammad and 2 others PLD 2002 SC 403; Haji Ghulam Rasul and others v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Auqaf Department, Lah. and others 2003 SCMR 1815; Almas Ahmad Fiaz v. Secretary Government of the Punjab Housing and Physical Planning Development, Lahore 2006 SCMR 783; Muhammad Sami v. Additional District Judge, Sargodha and 2 others 2007 SCMR 621; Government of N.W.F.P. and others v. Akbar Shah and others 2010 SCMR 1408; Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212; Chief Engineer, Gujranwala Electric Power Company GEPCO; Gujranwala v. Khalid Mehmood and others 2023 PLC 65; Kiramat Khan v. IG. Frontier Corps and others 2023 SCMR 866; Abid Hussain v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan through Chief of Air Staff, Islamabad 2021 SCMR 645; Muhammad Sharif and others v. MCB Bank Limited and others 2021 SCMR 1158; Haji Wajid v. Provincial Government through Secretary Board of Revenue Government of Balochistan, Quetta and others 2020 SCMR 2046; Ghulam Hussain Ramzan Ali v. Collector of Customs Preventive, Karachi 2015 PTD 107 = 2014 SCMR 1594; Ch. Shujaat Hussain and others v. Zafar Ahmed Qureshi and others 2014 SCMR 585; Messrs Blue Star Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax and others 2013 SCMR 587; Evacuee Trust Property Board and others v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and others 2007 SCMR 262; Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others 2007 SCMR 729; Government of Sindh through Advocate-General, Sindh, Karachi v. Masood Hussain and others 2002 SCMR 155; Ali Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 2001 SCMR 1822; S.Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee, Lahore and another 1978 SCMR 367; Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh and others 2007 SCMR 1446; Abdul Haq and another v. Mst. Surrya Begum and others 2002 SCMR 1330 and Jamil Khatoon and others v. Aish Muhammad and others 2011 SCMR 222 rel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---The purpose of invoking Art. 199 of the Constitution is to advance justice, rectify legal wrongs, and protect rights---Constitutional petition is not a substitute for appeal or revision---While exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, in the matters arising from appellate or revisional orders, High Court should only be concerned with whether or not the courts below acted within their jurisdiction---If such a court has the jurisdiction to decide a matter, it is considered competent to make a decision, regardless of whether the decision is right or wrong, and even if the said decision is considered to be incorrect, it would not automatically render it as being without lawful authority so as to invoke High Court s Constitutional jurisdiction---The object of exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution is to foster justice preserve rights and to right the wrong---The conversion of scope of exercise of constitutional jurisdiction into that of a second appeal or second revision has consistently been deprecated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar PLD 1974 SC 139; Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan and 2 others PLD 1985 SC 131; Hasan Din v. Hafiz Abdus Salam and others PLD 1991 SC 65; Mst. Mobin Fatima v. Muhammad Amin and 2 others PLD 2006 SC 214 and Secretary to the Govt. of the Punjab v. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others PLD 2001 SC 415 rel. Rana Muhammad Shahid Mahmood for Petitioner. Rana Ahmad Tayyab Shahid, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 6. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 16. Date of hearing. 23rd April, 2025. JUDGMENT KHALID ISHAQ, J.---Through this Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has called into question the Order and Decree dated 24.12.2018 (the "Impugned Decree") passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Shahkot, District Nankana Sahib ("Revisional Court"). 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the Petitioner/Plaintiff along-with Mst. Ishrat Bibi (respondent No.16 in this petition) filed a suit for declaration and Permanent Injunction (the "Suit") challenging the registered gift deed bearing Document No. 6231 dated 03.09.1981 ("Impugned Gift Deed") executed in favour of respondents Nos. 7 to 10 by Elahi Bakhsh ("Original Owner") (maternal grand-father of the Petitioner/Plaintiff) in respect of two parcels of land1, measuring 34- Kanals, 9-Marlas and 6-Kanals, 14- Marlas, situated in Nizampura Chak No. 38/R.B Deva Singhwala Tehsil Shahkot District Nankana-Sahib (the "Suit Property"). Plaint avers that the Original Owner was an old age bed ridden person who remained ill for a long time before his death and had lost normal prudence due to protracted illness. It was asserted by the Plaintiffs that respondents Nos. 7 to 10, in connivance with the revenue staff, got registered the Impugned Gift Deed in their favour by depriving Mst. Safia Bibi (real sister of the respondents Nos. 7 to 10) of her due legal share. Needless to add that mutation No. 957 dated 24.01.1982 was also sanctioned on the basis of Impugned Gift Deed. It was contended that above-mentioned respondents Nos. 7 to 10 further sold out the land to Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 through registered Sale Deeds bearing Document No. 2545 dated 18.03.1984 and Document No. 2544 dated 18.03.1984 ("Registered Sale Deeds"). Mutations bearing Nos. 1441 dated 24.09.1988 and 1442 dated 24.09.1984 respectively were also sanctioned on the basis of Registered Sale Deeds. As per the averments of the plaint, the Petitioner contacted the beneficial owners/respondents for his inheritance but in vain. Contesting Defendants filed written statement and supported the Impugned Gift Deed, as well as, Registered Sale Deeds executed and registered thereafter. During the proceedings of the Suit, contesting defendants also filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P.C.") which was disposed of by learned Civil Judge Class-I, Shahkot ("Trial Court") vide order dated 08.07.2017 ("Trial Court Order"), erroneously treating the Suit inter-se the co-owners, completely ignoring the 3rd party rights and questions of waiver, acquiescence and limitation. Being aggrieved of the Trial Court Order, the contesting respondents preferred a Civil Revision Petition in terms of Section 115 of the C.P.C, which was allowed vide the Impugned Decree, consequently the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C being barred by limitation. Hence this Constitutional Petition. 3. Leaned counsel for the Petitioner argued that question of limitation is irrelevant in inheritance claims and if right of a legal heir is accrued, all subsequent transactions, denying that right, are liable to be cancelled. Further submits with vehemence that it was a matter of recording of evidence as limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, therefore, plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Placed reliance upon "Khan Muhammad through L.Rs and others v. Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others" (2017 SCMR 1476). 4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 6 has ably assisted this Court by confining his submissions to legal premise of rejection of plaint through Impugned Decree; submits that the recording of evidence was not required as the Suit was patently barred by limitation; argues that Court must put an end to litigation at the very initial stage when it becomes evident that a full-fledged trial would be a futile exercise. Further submits that limitation cannot be brushed aside in every claim based on inheritance; adds that admittedly the impugned transaction of gift and subsequent sales were never challenged by the deceased lady who remained alive till 2009 and as such, legal heirs of the said deceased cannot challenge the same. Finally submits that Mst. Safia Bibi was married in the same village where the Suit Property is situated, the plaintiffs, who are her successors, are also residing in the same village, which fact is admitted and evident from the address of the plaintiff/petitioner supplied in the plaint as well as in the Petition in hand. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases reported as "Agha Syed Mushtaque Ali Shah v. Mst. Bibi Gul Jan and others" (2016 SCMR 910), "Noor Din and another v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others" (2014 SCMR 513), "Mst. Grana through Legal Heirs and others v. Sahib Kamala Bibi and others" (PLD 2014 SC 167), "Lal Khan through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heirs" (PLD 2011 SC 657), "Muhammad Rustam and another v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others" (2013 SCMR 299), "Muhammad Raz Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P and another" (PLD 1997 SC 397) and "Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Ltd v. Mian Abdul Latif and others" (PLD 2008 SC 371). 5. Arguments heard. Record perused. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that Safia Bibi died on 01.12.2009. It is also admitted that she never challenged the Impugned Gift Deed in her lifetime, although she remained alive for 28 years after the Impugned Gift Deed but did not come forward to impugn the same. It is worth mentioning here that Impugned Gift Deed is a registered document on the basis of which Mutation No. 957 dated 24.01.1982 was sanctioned in favour of respondents Nos. 7 to 10, who are real brothers of Mst. Safia Bibi. It is also noteworthy that aforementioned respondents/brothers of Mst. Safia Bibi further alienated the Suit Property in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 through Registered Sale Deeds/Mutations and since then the said purchasers are in cultivating possession of the Suit Property. The Impugned Gift Deed was challenged by the Petitioner/Plaintiff on 24.11.2015, after 34 years of the Impugned Gift Deed and 06 years after the death of Mst. Safia Bibi. At the outset I will discuss as to what right vests in the Petitioner/ Plaintiff when no such right was claimed by Mst. Safia Bibi within her lifetime and whether the most important question of limitation involved in this case can conveniently be brushed aside, ignored or condoned on simple claim of inheritance. It needs to be appreciated that the present petitioner/plaintiff has not inherited anything qua his claim on the basis of his relationship with his deceased mother Mst. Safia Bibi as she did not leave behind any inheritance with respect to the Suit Property. Not only the Impugned Gift Deed was not challenged within her lifetime, the subsequent transactions of sales to 3rd parties, evidenced by registered instruments were not challenged either. The law has been well settled that if a predecessor has not challenged a transaction in his/her lifetime, which transaction purports to deprive the predecessor of his/her share and 3rd party rights have been created, simple claim on the basis of inheritance will not absolve the question of limitation.2 A careful perusal of the law laid down by the Apex Court clearly leads to an ineluctable conclusion that the question of limitation cannot be dubbed irrelevant in every claim of inheritance. Based on a thorough analysis of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the settled legal position emerges that only in the cases of exceptional facts, the question of limitation has not been treated as a statutory bar against the claims of inheritance. Those exceptional cases may be summed up in the following terms: i. Cases filed by female heirs, within their lifetime, claiming fraud and misrepresentation played against them qua the immoveable property left behind by their predecessor in interest; ii. Cases where it is pleaded and proved that the deprived female heir(s) were being paid some proportionate share from the income/lease of the immoveable property in question; iii. Cases where a co-sharer has successfully pleaded and proved that the rival heir or co-sharer was in deemed possession of immoveable property on behalf of all other heirs/siblings; iv. Cases where no third -party rights have been created in the immoveable property, which is/was subject matter of undisputed inheritance; v. Cases where the elements of acquiescence and waiver are absent on the part of the claimant legal heir or his/her predecessor in interest. Muhammad Rustam's case3 relates to plea of inheritance agitated by a successor through predecessor, whose predecessor never agitated his right of inheritance during his lifetime. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has held: "11. Atta Muhammad was deprived of right to inherit the property as a consequence of mutation in dispute but he did not challenge the same during his lifetime. The petitioners claimed the property through Atta Muhammad as his…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant