Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 148, 28, 19

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 115

Case Summary: Facts: The suit property measured 131 Kanal 16 Marla out of total 263 Kanal 12 Marla in Domail, Tehsil Jand, District Attock. Originally owned by Karam Khan, Mowaz Khan, Mst. Shahzadan (mortgagors) and Ahmad Khan. Mortgaged through Mutation No. 387 (1930) in favor of Dullah, Gulab, and Bahadur for Rs. 500. Subsequent mutation (No. 1569, 1939) confirmed mortgage. Respondent purchased mortgagee rights from successors of original mortgagees via Mutation No. 412 (1983) for Rs. 1,200. Respondent filed suit claiming ownership by prescription, arguing that mortgagors did not redeem property within 60 years (Article 148 Limitation Act, 1908). Applicant (defendant, son of Nawab) contested the suit. Both trial and first appellate courts decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. Key Legal Points: Prescription under Limitation Act, 1908: Article 148 provides 60 years for mortgagor to redeem. Section 28 of the Limitation Act (extinguishing rights after prescribed period) was declared repugnant to Islam (Shariat Appellate Bench, Govt. of Pakistan v. Ahmad Maqbool, 1991 SCMR 2063). Principle: Ownership cannot be transferred merely by efflux of time; mortgagee cannot gain ownership over lawful owner by default. Effect of Subsequent Mortgage / Transfer: Section 19 Limitation Act 1908: If liability or rights acknowledged in writing, limitation period restarts. Respondent purchased mortgagee rights in 1983; therefore, limitation period starts from 1983, not 1930. References: Mst. Bilqees Malik v. Rana Muhammad Iftikharuddin, 1997 PLD Lahore 733; Ahmad Khan v. Abdur Rehman, 2009 SCMR 191. Revisional Jurisdiction (CPC Section 115): Concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts are not sacrosanct when material legal errors exist. Courts below misapplied the law, ignoring restart of limitation period and repugnancy of Section 28 to Shariah. Revisional court is obliged to correct such legal errors. References: Malik Muhammad Khaqan v. Trustees of KPT, 2008 SCMR 428; Imam Din v. Bashir Ahmed, PLD 2005 Supreme Court 418. Decision: Revision application allowed. Judgments of trial and appellate courts set aside. Suit filed by respondent dismissed. No order as to…