1991 S C M R 451

Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J

ABDUL GHAFFAR‑‑Petitioner

versus

ZAIUR RAHIM and others‑‑Respondents

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 596‑R of 1989, decided on 26th February, 1990.

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated
23‑9‑1989 in C.R. No. 314‑D of 1989).

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Father of petitioner and

predecessor‑in‑interest of respondent had entered into Deed of Association showing
that former had surrendered his full rights in favour of petitioner which was filed with
the Settlement Authorities in pursuance whereof P.T.O. was issued in favour of
petitioner and subsequently P.T.D. was also issued to him‑‑‑After death of their
predecessor‑in‑interest, respondents filed suit for declaration that Deed of Association,
P.T.O. and P.T.D. issued in favour of petitioner were illegal, null and void and that they
were entitled to inherit property‑‑‑Suit was decreed and such decree was maintained
both in appeal and revision‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents
having not challenged in his lifetime P.T.O. and P.T.D. issued in petitioner's favour, his
silence and conduct led to the inference as if he had accepted the transfer‑‑‑Leave to
appeal was granted to consider all the points arising out of the case.

Basir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan,
Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Kh. M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehar Khan Malik,

Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th February, 1990.

ORDER

RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This is petition by Abdul Ghaffar seeking leave to appeal

against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 23‑9‑1989.

2. Abdul Rahim, the father of both Abdul Jabbar, predecessor‑in‑interest of present

respondents Nos.1 to 3, and Abdul Ghaffar, the present petitioner, filed C.S. Form with
the Settlement Authorities for the transfer of the disputed shop in his name. On
19‑5‑1973 Deed of Association purporting to be between Abdul Rahim and Abdul
Jabbar was filed with the Settlement Authorities showing that Abdul Rahim had
surrendered his full rights in favour of Abdul Ghaffar. An order was passed that if the
Deed of Association was in order it may be acted upon. In pursuance of the said Deed
of Association, P.T.O. was issued in favour of Abdul Ghaffar on 27‑11‑1973. At this
stage it may be stated that Abdul Rahim had died on 11‑6‑1973. Later, the P.T.D. was
also issued in favour of Abdul Ghaffar petitioner. On 13‑4‑1973 Ziaur Rahim and
others, respondents Nos.1 to 3, heirs of Abdul Jabbar deceased, filed a suit for
declaration that the Deed of Association, the P.T.O. and the P.T.D. issued in favour of
Abdul Ghaffar petitioner were illegal, null and void and that they were entitled to
inherit 1/4th of the property. The trial Court decreed the suit, whose findings were
upheld by both the appellate and revisional Court.

3. On behalf of the petitioner the judgments of the three Courts below have been
assailed primarily on the question of limitation. It is suggested that Article 91 of the
Limitation Act, 1908, applies to the case and that suit of respondents Nos.1 to 3 was
time‑barred.

4. We notice that Abdul Jabbar, the predecessor‑in‑interest of Ziaur Rahim and others,
respondents Nos.1 to 3, did. not in his own lifetime challenge the P.T.O. and P.T.D. His
silence and conduct leads to the inference as if he had accepted the transfer. In these
circumstances, we would grant leave to appeal to consider all the points arising out of
the case. The petitioner shall furnish security in the sum of Rs.5,000. The appeal shall
be heard on the basis of the present record. Parties are at liberty to file such further
documents as they consider 6t and proper for the full and final disposal of the appeal.
Status quo shall be maintained, till the final disposal of the appeal.

AA/A‑725/S Leave granted.

;