Bar of Limitation in Inheritance Disputes

CIVIL LAWINHERITANCE

Assad Ullah Jaral

10/9/20243 min read

blue wooden door
blue wooden door

In Civil Petition No.1182-L of 2018, the Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed a petition by Akhtar Nasir Ahmed challenging a Lahore High Court decision that upheld the dismissal of his suit concerning a mutation of inheritance (2024 SCP 361). The petitioner sought to challenge the 1982 mutation in favor of Respondent No. 4, contending that the inheritance should exclude his predeceased sister’s son. The Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner’s delay of over 27 years in bringing the suit was unjustified, affirming that the law of limitation applied to the inheritance claim.

Background:

The dispute arose when the petitioner, Akhtar Nasir Ahmed, filed a suit for declaration in 2009, challenging the mutation of inheritance No. 2165 executed in 1982 in favor of his predeceased sister’s son, Respondent No. 4. The petitioner argued that as the son of a predeceased sibling, Respondent No. 4 was not entitled to inherit a share in the property of the petitioner’s late father. The trial court initially decreed in favor of the petitioner, but the decision was overturned by the appellate court, which remanded the case, adding the issue of limitation. Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred, a finding upheld by the High Court and now under scrutiny in this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Key Issues:

Applicability of Limitation in Inheritance Disputes: Whether the law of limitation barred the petitioner’s challenge to the 1982 mutation in an inheritance matter.

Petitioner’s Justification for Delay: Whether the petitioner’s assertion of lack of knowledge of the mutation due to residing abroad in Canada excused the 27-year delay in filing the suit.

Concurrent Findings by Lower Courts: Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the consistent findings of the trial, appellate, and High Court in dismissing the suit.

Court's Analysis:

Applicability of Limitation in Inheritance Disputes: The Court reaffirmed that while inheritance disputes may sometimes circumvent limitation laws, this exception does not apply universally. Citing precedent, including Mst. Grana vs. Sahib Kamala Bibi (PLD 2014 SC 167), the Court clarified that limitations could indeed apply in inheritance cases, especially where there has been an unreasonable delay. The Court emphasized that the 27-year gap between the mutation and the filing of the suit without any challenge from the petitioner’s family or other legal heirs suggested acquiescence to the mutation. The Court held that the principle of finality in property matters, safeguarded by the limitation law, is crucial to prevent reopening settled matters after decades.

Petitioner’s Justification for Delay: The petitioner argued that his residence in Canada precluded him from learning of the mutation until much later. However, the Court found this assertion unsupported, noting that the petitioner’s initial complaint did not mention his residence abroad. Furthermore, even if the petitioner had resided outside Pakistan, he failed to provide any specific plea seeking exemption from the limitation rule, as required by Order VII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court held that the absence of a valid explanation for the delay underscored the validity of the limitation bar and rejected the petitioner’s attempt to rely on Ghulam Ali vs. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1), observing that each inheritance case requires its own merits to determine if an exception to limitation applies.

Concurrent Findings by Lower Courts: The Court emphasized its reluctance to interfere with concurrent findings from the trial court, appellate court, and the High Court unless such findings were found to be perverse, arbitrary, or capricious. In this case, the Court found that the judgments below were consistent and well-reasoned, with no material misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Court reaffirmed that the limitation law functions to prevent indefinite delays and provide finality to legal disputes, cautioning against setting precedents that would permit stale claims to resurface without compelling justification.

Court's Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, ruling that the petitioner’s suit was rightly dismissed as time-barred. The Court stressed that limitation serves to promote certainty and repose in legal matters and cautioned that allowing the suit to proceed after a 27-year delay would erode these fundamental principles. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was denied.

Contact Us:

For professional legal assistance in inheritance disputes, limitation law, or other civil litigation matters, contact AUJ LAWYERS LLP for expert representation.

We are here to help

Talk to our lawyers today. We tailor our services around your legal needs so that we can reach the desired outcome together.