Right of Redemption in Evacuee Property Case Involving 1947 Mortgage.
ایوکیو پراپرٹی میں حقِ واگزاری: پشاور ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
کیس کا پس منظر:
قانونی جنگ:
پراپرٹی کی واگزاری کے لیے 60 سال کے اندر درخواست دینی چاہیے تھی۔
ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ:
فیصلے کے اثرات:
Must read judgement
Citation Name : 2025 CLC 365 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : AJMAL KHAN
Side Opponent : SHER REHMAN
Ss.25(2)(l) & 25(2)(s)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.19 & First Sched. Art. 148---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54--- Declaration of title---Redemption of land mortgaged to a non-Muslim lady, who left the country at the time of partition in the year 1947---Non-issuance of notice to mortgagor to redeem the property---Effect---Limitation period, commencement of---Possession of the petitioners was not disputed---Federal Government terming the suit property as evacuee property transferred it in favour of Federal Government and then to a person respectively, who later on transferred it in favour of predecessor of respondents---Mortgage came to knowledge of the petitioners, when predecessor of the respondents instituted a suit against petitioners alleging to be the owners of the suit property, which prompted the petitioners to file a declaratory suit for redemption of the suit property---Trial Court dismissed the suit treating it to be barred by time under Art. 148 of Limitation Act, 1908---Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree of Trial Court on the ground that it was not clear that non-Muslim lady had left the country after 1947, therefore, petitioners were required to have asked for redemption of the property within a period of sixty years---Validity---Such determination of the Appellate Court was completely against the record and did not have any relevance to the present controversy for the reason that if such argument of the Appellate Court was accepted then there was no occasion for the Federal Government to have declared the suit property as evacuee and transferred it in the year, 1990, therefore, Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal on wrong premises---Powers under S.25(2)(l) of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, were delegated to the Deputy Rehabilitation and Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner to issue notice to local mortgagors to redeem the property within one month failing which the property would be liable to be auctioned under S.25(2)(s) of the Act, but the petitioners were not given any notice, as such, from the acknowledgment of the right of redemption, a fresh period of limitation would be computed for the exercise of such right in terms of S.19 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Thus, if the period of limitation was counted from the year, 1947, still the suit of the petitioners was not barred by time---After the acknowledgement of the rights of the petitioners vide letter Memo dated 08.12.1959, a fresh period of limitation would be computed for exercise of such rights in terms of S.19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and as such, from the year, 1959 too, the suit of the petitioners was not barred by time---Both the Courts below had failed to consider the question of limitation in its true perspective, as suit filed by petitioners for redemption was well within time in terms of Art.148 of the Limitation Act, 1908, therefore, Civil revision was allowed and judgments and decree s passed by the Courts below were set-aside and the suit of the petitioners was decree d as prayed for accordingly.