MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN art — 2025 PLD 581 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---The purpose of invoking art. 199 of the Constitution is to advance justice, rectify legal wrongs, and protect rights---Constitutional petition is not a substitute for appeal or revision---While exercising jurisdiction under art. 199 of the Constitution, in the matters arising from appellate or revisional orders, High Court should only be concerned with whether or not the courts below acted within their jurisdiction---If such a court has the jurisdiction to decide a matter, it is considered competent to make a decision, regardless of whether the decision is right or wrong, and even if the said decision is considered to be incorrect, it would not automatically render it as being without lawful authority so as to invoke High Court's Constitutional jurisdiction---The object of exercising jurisdiction under art. 199 of the Constitution is to foster justice preserve rights and to right the wrong---The conversion of scope of exercise of constitutional jurisdiction into that of a second appeal or second revision has consistently been deprecated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 581 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN O. VII, R. 11---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.100---Gift---Inheritance---Rejection of plaint---Plaint barred by law---Recording of evidence---Scope---Plaint that is clearly barred by limitation on its face must be rejected summarily---Duty of courts to act suo motu on limitation---Frivolous and fictitious claims to be nipped in the bud at the outset---Limitation runs even against void order---Presumption of authenticity attached to 34 year old gift deed---When the plaint is barred by any law on the face of it, recording of evidence would be a futile exercise and would amount to encouraging the abuse---Where on the plain reading of the plaint, it can be clearly seen that the suit is patently barred by limitation, no evidence is required---To plead that a plaint cannot be rejected because of the suit being barred by limitation/law, without recording evidence, is to plead against the mandate of law as contained in O. VII, R. 11 C.P.C., which essentially requires the court to reject the plaint which appears from its contents to be barred by limitation---Aggrieved person has to pursue his legal remedies with diligence and if a suit is beyond limitation, the delay of each and every day consumed for approaching the court beyond the period of limitation has to be explained---In the instant case the plaint on the face of it failed to explain the delay of a period of 34 years---The contents of the plaint failed to set up a case in a manner which rendered the question of limitation as a mixed question of law and fact---Mere reading of the contents of the plaint made it abundantly clear that it was statute barred and was liable to be dismissed in terms of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C without employing valuable judicial resources and time of the Trial Court---By specifically incorporating the provision in terms of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C, the legislature has empowered the court with an independent suo motu and sua sponte power to examine the plaint by using its wisdom---The courts always nip a frivolous suit in the bud, by rejecting such frivolous, fictitious and untenable claims in order to retain courts' docket and time for more serious claims---Non-actionable plaint or suit is a non-starter and in the interest of administration of justice and good judicial governance, it is best if such plaints are dismissed at the earliest---Keeping in view the mandatory provision of S. 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908, it is duty of every court and forum itself to look into the question of limitation irrespective of the fact whether any objection in this regard has been raised or not---Limitation runs even against a void order and a void order too has to be challenged within limitation---In the instant case, there was no justification at the outset merely by considering the averments of the plaint to overlook the delay of 34 years---When Mst. "SB" did not challenge the impugned gift deed in her life time despite third party transfers through registered deeds, petitioner/plaintiff had no right to claim inheritance of Mst. "SB"---Under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 a presumption was attached to the impugned gift deed which was 34 years old document at the time of its challenge before the Trial Court---In the instant case, predecessor in interest of the petitioner/plaintiff (Mst. "SB") never voiced any grievance against the Impugned mutation; even on her demise in 2009, her legal heirs kept a mum for almost six years despite being resident of same village, and suddenly woke up from slumber and filed the suit in November 2015, which was not permissible under the law---There was no substance in the petition which was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 581 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Registered gift deed, challenge to---Inheritance claims---Limitation, applicability of---Subsequent third-party transfers on the basis of gift deed---Gift deed not challenged in lifetime---Effect---Inheritance claims must overcome limitation unless exceptional circumstances---Exceptional circumstances where limitation did not apply in inheritance cases stated---The pivotal question under consideration in the instant matter was as to "whether, in the realm of inheritance claims, the bar of limitation retained its binding force and whether a legal heir could successfully challenge a decades-old registered gift and subsequent third-party transfers on the basis of inheritance, without first overcoming the statutory bar of limitation, particularly where the predecessor-in-interest, during their lifetime, neither contested the transaction nor asserted any legal right thereto"---Petitioner along with respondent No. 16, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against a registered gift deed dated 03.09.1981, executed by his maternal grandfather (the original owner) in favor of his uncles (respondents Nos. 7-10) regarding some ancestral land---After the gift deed, respondents 7-10 sold the property to third parties (respondents 1-6) via registered sale deeds in 1984, and relevant mutations were sanctioned accordingly---During proceedings of the suit the contesting defendants filed application under section O. VII, R. 11 of C.P.C. which was disposed of by the Trial Court by completely ignoring the third party rights and questions of waiver, acquiesce and limitation---Being aggrieved of the Trial Court order the contesting respondents preferred civil revision petition under S. 115, C.P.C. which was allowed vide the impugned decree and consequently the plaint was rejected being barred by limitation---Held: It was not in all cases of inheritance that the question of limitation became irrelevant---In various claims of inheritance brought by female legal heirs against their brothers/male heirs, the question of limitation could not be ignored in every such case and such question of limitation was dependent upon facts and circumstance of each case---The impugned gift deed was challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff on 24.11.2015, after 34 years of the impugned gift deed and 06 years after the death of Mst. "SB" (real sister of respondents Nos. 7-10)---The present petitioner/ plaintiff had not inherited anything qua his claim on the basis of his relationship with his deceased mother Mst. "SB" as she did not leave behind any inheritance with respect to the suit property---Not only was the impugned gift deed not challenged within her lifetime, the subsequent transactions of sales to third parties, evidenced by registered instruments were not challenged either---If a predecessor did not challenge a transaction in his/her lifetime, which transaction purported to deprive the predecessor of his/her share and third party rights had been created, simple claim on the basis of inheritance would not absolve the question of limitation---The lack of challenge by the donor within the lifetime was fatal and the bar of limitation would accordingly apply---The question of limitation could not be dubbed irrelevant in every claim of inheritance---Only in the cases of exceptional facts, the question of limitation had not been treated as a statutory bar against the claims of inheritance---Those exceptional cases may be summed up in the following terms: i. Cases filed by female heirs, within their lifetime, claiming fraud and misrepresentation played against them qua the immoveable property left behind by their predecessor in interest; ii. Cases where it is pleaded and proved that the deprived female heir(s) were being paid some proportionate share from the income/lease of the immoveable property in question; iii. Cases where a co-sharer has successfully pleaded and proved that the rival heir or co-sharer was in deemed possession of immoveable property on behalf of all other heirs/siblings; iv. Cases where no third-party rights have been created in the immoveable property, which is/was subject matter of undisputed inheritance; v. Cases where the elements of acquiescence and waiver are absent on the part of the claimant legal heir or his/her predecessor in interest---The question of limitation could neither be ignored in every claim based on purported rights of inheritance nor it was permissible for the litigants to lay a statute barred challenge by couching the relief in the form of an inheritance claim---However, under the few exceptions, where a female was deprived of her share in the immoveable property of her predecessor, limitation would not be a question against her claim of inheritance where the female had successfully pleaded all the ingredients of fraud being played upon her while sanctioning the inheritance mutation by excluding her from inheritance---The limitation would not be an obstacle in the case of inheritance as where the fact of claimant lady being deprived from the inherited property by way of impugned mutation was concealed from her, however,she pleaded and proved that she was being paid her share of income from the property and once the same was denied, she brought the suit within her lifetime---A claim of inheritance must cross the bridge of limitation, waiver and acquiescence---An unchecked tendency of encouraging a relief in the guise of inheritance was not warranted under the law, particularly when the property in issue changed hands and the slumber of a purported claimant of inheritance crystalized valuable rights in favour of third parties---The encouragement of such claims and long drawn trials in statute barred suits was counter productive for genuine and bona fide claims of female heirs---In the instant case, predecessor in interest of the petitioner/plaintiff (Mst. "SB") never voiced any grievance against the impugned mutation; even on her demise in 2009, her legal heirs kept a mum for almost six years despite being resident of same village, and suddenly woke up from slumber and filed the suit in November 2015, which was not permissible under the law---There was no substance in the petition which was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN art — 2025 PLD 581 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD