| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6760 2024 SLD 6760 = 2024 YLR 1584 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 41 of 2019 and C.M.As. Nos. 250 of 2019, 9729 of 2021, 13058 of 2022, decided on 28th February, 2023.
Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J
Miss. Qamar Ali v. Syed Nadir Ali and others 1993 CLC 605; Ghulam Muhammad through Legal Heirs v. Mst. Saban and 3 others 1993 MLD 2539 and Muhammad Sajjad Hussain v. Muhammad Anwar Hussain 1991 SCMR 703 ref. Zahid Hussain for Plaintiffs. Javed Ahmed Qazi and Sadaf Gul for Defendants Nos.1, 3 and 4. Fawad Saeed for Defendant No.6. Defendant No. 2 Irfan Ahmed present in person.
Suit No. 41 of 2019 and C.M.As. Nos. 250 of 2019, 9729 of 2021, 13058 of 2022, decided on 28th February, 2023.
Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J
Miss. Qamar Ali v. Syed Nadir Ali and others 1993 CLC 605; Ghulam Muhammad through Legal Heirs v. Mst. Saban and 3 others 1993 MLD 2539 and Muhammad Sajjad Hussain v. Muhammad Anwar Hussain 1991 SCMR 703 ref. Zahid Hussain for Plaintiffs. Javed Ahmed Qazi and Sadaf Gul for Defendants Nos.1, 3 and 4. Fawad Saeed for Defendant No.6. Defendant No. 2 Irfan Ahmed present in person.
SHAHID and another---Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Mst. ZAINAB and others---Defendants
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: IX,1,120
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 42,54
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: VII,11
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------First Sched., Art.120---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54--- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11--- Suit for declaration and injunction--Rejection of plaint---Cause of action---Bar of limitation---Plaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit property and that predecessor-in-interest of defendants was a Benami owner---Validity---Actual transaction took place in year 1992 when suit property was purchased in the names of predecessor-in-interest of parties who were wives of two business partners---Transaction was first time challenged by plaintiffs in that year 2018---It is also a common practice and custom of our society that a property is purchased in the name of wife merely to provide her a sense of security---Title of suit property was never questioned or title was never threatened even after passage of 15 (fifteen) years after the death of father of plaintiffs---Provision of Art. 120 of Limitation Act, 1908 started running from the date of death of father, that was, 0409-2003 and not April, 2018---High Court rejected the suit as it was barred by Limitation Act, 1908---Application was allowed, in circum-stances.Ghulam Murtaza v. Mst. Asia Bibi and others PLD 2010 SC 569 rel.ORDERMUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J.---The dispute is about the soleSuit Property-Plot No.95/II, Commercial Avenue, Phase-IV, D.H.A.. Karachi, in the name of Defendant No.1 (Mst. Zainab) and Mst. Khadija Bai, both shown to be the co-owners in the Official Record of DHA [Defence Housing Authority]. The present dispute is amongst the Family Members of Mst. Zainab widow of Abdul Karim, who is Defendant No.1 and is Mother of Plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and Defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. whereas, Defendant No. 6 is the son of Mst. Khadija Bai, whose 50% [fifty percent] ownership share is undisputed.Arguments heard on Application C.M.A. No.9729 of 2021 [under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C.].Mr. Javed Ahmed Qazi, Advocate along with Ms. Sadaf Gul, Advocate representing the Defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4, states that the present Suit is barred by law, that is. Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, so also the Order VI, Rule 4 of C.P.C. as no particulars…