Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLG 728 1995 SLD 728 , 1995 PLD 254
Sindh High Court
Civil Appeal No.2 of 1994, decided on 2nd October, 1994.
Presented By: Before Abdul Rahim Kazi,. J
Khaliq Hamayun for Appellant. S.H.Qazilbash for
Respondent No.ll. / pa'

HAMID NOOR KHAN---Appellant

VERSUS

MUHAMMAID MOOR KHAN through Legal Representatives and 10 others--- Respondents

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 100

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Art. 127---Muhammadan, Law---Claim based on inheritance ---Limitation -- Suit on basis of inheritance was filed 16 years after the death of ancestor of parties whereas property tin question, was admittedly leased out to defendant in 1978--- Succession though would open on the death of propositions, yet after the death of ancestor all the heirs became entitled to property in accordance with their respect shares and constructively they came into joint possession of the same ---Protion of Art. 127, Limitation Act, 1908, would be applicable in such case ---Exclusion of plaintiff having been made in 1978 when property in question was exclusively leased out to defendant excluding all other heirs, suit filed in 1982, was well within time. [p. 255] A Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908 )--_ ----S. 100--- Concurrent findings of ,fact--- Validity--- Concurrent. findings of fact could not be questioned in second appeal unless they were shown to be perverse and contrary to evidence on record. [p. 256] B Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- . ----S. 100---Muhammadan Law---Gift---New plea in second appeal ---Effect--Inconsistent plea---Admissibility---Defendent's plea before Trial Court was that property in question, was transferred to him by his deceased ancestor through gift ---No evidence was brought on record to prove factum of gift-- During course of argument in second appeal, however, defendant had taken plea that transfer was made in his favour by the leasing Authority on ground of continuous possession although he conceded that he had applied for such transfer on the ground of inheritance as well---Such plea being inconsistent to the plea of gift taken by defendant same could not be permitted to be raised at the stage of second appeal---Plaintiff thus, failed to prove factum of gift in his favour and being one of the heirs of deceased could not claim property in question to the exclusion of other heirs. [p. 256] B Khaliq Hamayun for Appellant. S.H.Qazilbash for Respondent No.ll. / pa' Date of hearing: 2nd October, 1994."` ORDER This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the two Courts below.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register