| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 401 1994 SLD 401 1994 PLD 462 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 48 and 49 of 1992, decision dated: 15January, 1994. (On appeal from the common judgment of theHigh Court of Sindh at Karachi dated 7-11-1991 passed inCivil Revisions Nos.111/85 and 144/85 respectively).
SAAD SAOOD, JAN, AJMAL MIAN AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court am Naraindas C. Motiani, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants
Respondent No. 1 in person.
Civil Appeals Nos. 48 and 49 of 1992, decision dated: 15January, 1994. (On appeal from the common judgment of theHigh Court of Sindh at Karachi dated 7-11-1991 passed inCivil Revisions Nos.111/85 and 144/85 respectively).
SAAD SAOOD, JAN, AJMAL MIAN AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court am Naraindas C. Motiani, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants
Respondent No. 1 in person.
MOOLCHAND and 9 othersvsMUHAMMAD YOUSUF (UDHAMDAS) and 3 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------S. 8---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine the question as to whether in view of S.8, Limitation Act, 1908, High Court was not justified in holding that suit of respondent for the reliefs, other than declaration was not barred by time as admittedly respondent attained the age of majority on 5-12-1974 and the suit was filed on 5-11-1979 i.e. after the expiry of more than three years provided in S. 8 and that on no principle a decree in favour of one of the respondents could have been passed by the High Court. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 185---Appeal before Supreme Court---Findings of three Courts below were concurrent and in favour of plaintiff in the suit---Supreme Court declined to go into those issues which had attained finality, particularly leave to appeal was also not granted in respect of those questions. (c) Hindu Law--- ----Partition---Widow cannot demand partition but if partition takes place can have share equal to son. [p. 475] T Hindu Law, S.315 ref. (d) Mutation--- ---- Knowledge -of mother with regard to mutation cannot be imputed to son who was minor at the relevant time as -she could be termed as guardian of person of minor but not of his property. (e) Hindu Law--- ----Devolution---After the death of owner, devolution under Hindu Law connotes perception of joint property in which all legal heirs inherit equal shares. (1) Co-sharer--- ....Adverse possession, plea of ..If property is joint, possession of one co-heir is sufficient to be considered as possession of all co-heirs---Some co-heirs on the ground of exclusive possession cannot defeat the claim of other co-heirs by taking plea of adverse possession---Persons taking such plea have to produce positive evidence to show exclusive and ouster of other co-heirs.--[Adverse possession].,x If property is joint, possession of one co-heir is sufficient to be considered as possession of all co-heirs. Some co-heirs on the ground of exclusive possession cannot defeat the claim of other co-heirs by taking plea of adverse possession. Persons taking such plea have to produce positive evidence to show…
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