Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 1030 2023 SLD 1030 2023 CLC 981
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 225-D of 2007, decided on 10th October, 2022. Date of hearing: 29th September, 2022.
SULTAN TANVIR AHMAD, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD IQBAL

VS

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and others

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 19,148

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.42 54---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 19 Art. 148---Suit for declaration, injunction and redemption of mortgage---Limitation---Acknowledgment of liability---Scope---Mortgagor, right of--- Petitioner / Plaintiff sought redemption of suit property claiming that according to revenue record (Missal Haqeeqat) pertaining to year 1872 it was mortgaged in favour of the person who shifted to India during partition---After partition, suit property was allotted to predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants who stood in the shoes of evacuee mortgagee---Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by petitioner / plaintiff--- Validity--- To obtain benefit of S.19 of Limitation Act, 1908 it was incumbent upon petitioner / plaintiff to show from record that his right was acknowledged in writing and signed before expiry of original limitation---Mortgage rights were created in favor of evacuee mortgagee somewhere in the year 1872---Period of limitation of 60 years expired much prior to year 1947---Suit was silent as to any discharge of liability or acknowledgement, from year 1872 till next 60 years by the one against whom such property or right was claimed---Upon creation of mortgage the subsequent purchaser had purchased or acquired rights subject to mortgage---Charge of mortgage kept travelling and even the suit land was further sold or it was exchanged---Existence of mortgage could only come to end on payment of mortgage money by the consent of parties or by operation of law---Upon expiry of limitation, mortgage matured into ownership---High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others v. Member, Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and 16 others PLD 2005 Lah. 119; Muhammad Hanif and another v. Ghulam Rasool through L.Rs and others 2005 SCMR 1004; Abdul Haq v. Ali Akbar and others 1999 SCMR 2531; Samar Gul v. Central Government and others PLD 1986 SC 35; Allah Ditta and others v. Sardar Khan and others PLD 1997 Lah. 716 and Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 distinguished.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492