818/1998 Suit HAJI MUHAMMAD YOUNUS. (Plaintiff) V/S HAJI USMAN & ORS. (Defendant)

818/1998 Suit HAJI MUHAMMAD YOUNUS. (Plaintiff) V/S HAJI USMAN & ORS. (Defendant) Sindh High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar Order Date: 07-DEC-17

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, R. 13---Suit for declaration, injunction and partition---Limitation--- Family settlement---Arbitration award---Scope---Claim of ownership or share in the suit property which was never raised by the father of plaintiff in his lifetime could not be raised by one of his legal heirs after twelve years of his death---Share of plaintiff's father in the joint family business had not been handed over to him and his other legal heirs---Plaintiff had no title and right in the suit property and he had prayed for its partition---Validity---Plaintiff should have impleaded his other brothers and sisters as legal heirs of his deceased father and prayed for declaration of joint ownership which he had not done---Plaintiff was bound to explain as to how the relief sought by him in the present suit was within limitation---Present suit did not fall within the ambit of administration of property for which no limitation was applicable---Right to seek declaration of ownership accrued to the plaintiff in the year 1985; plaintiff should have approached the Housing Society within six years for mutation of his share in the record of said society---Limitation to claim ownership in the suit property had expired in July 1991---Right to sue for partition of immovable property would accrue only to the owner against co-owner irrespective of possession---Plaintiff was not owner of suit property and family settlement and arbitration award could not be enforced against lawful owner of immovable property---Mere construction on the suit property did not create right and interest adverse to the owner of said property---Law did not recognize possession of an immovable property as ownership rights---Ownership was dependent on the title document and not on mere residence/ possession of immovable property---Plaintiff had no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit---Suit was dismissed in circumstances.