Property and inheritance · Supreme Court of Pakistan

Twelve years on someone's land does not make it yours.

The myth: “12 years on someone's land, and it's yours.”Wrong

The short answer

Under the old Limitation Act, an owner who did not sue for possession in time lost his title. The Supreme Court's Shariat Appellate Bench held that rule against the injunctions of Islam with effect from 31 August 1991, and in 2025 the Supreme Court said again that time alone does not take an owner's property away.

Maqbool Ahmad v. Hakoomat-e-Pakistan · Supreme Court of Pakistan (Shariat Appellate Bench) · 1991 SCMR 2063 · decided Effective 31 August 1991

By the FAI Legal editorial desk · 10 October 2026 · 5 min read

In land disputes across Pakistan you still hear it: if you have held a piece of land for twelve years, it becomes yours. Some occupiers count the years; some owners panic.

This matters to owners whose land or house is in someone else's possession, to tenants and mortgagees who have held property for a long time, and to anyone buying land with an occupier on it.

Key points

Twelve years came from Article 144 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908, read with section 28, which extinguished the owner's right to the property once the time for a suit for possession had run out. Article 144 now reads "Omitted by Act. II of 1995, s.3."
The Supreme Court's Shariat Appellate Bench in 1991 SCMR 2063 held section 28 repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam in so far as it extinguished the right in the property, with effect from 31 August 1991.
The Supreme Court in 2025 SCMR 1018: "Simply efflux of time would not deprive an owner from his ownership rights."
The same judgment: after the cut-off date of 31 August 1991, no one can claim a right under the law of prescription.

The rule in one line

Possession is not ownership. Since 31 August 1991 an owner does not lose his title just because someone else has held his land for years. A court may still refuse a remedy that is time barred, but the right of ownership remains.

The old law and the 1991 decision

Under the Limitation Act 1908 a suit for possession of immovable property had to be filed within a fixed period, twelve years under Article 144. Section 28 went further: once that period ran out, the owner's right to the property itself was extinguished, and the person in possession could end up with the title.

In Maqbool Ahmad v. Hakoomat-e-Pakistan, 1991 SCMR 2063, the Supreme Court's Shariat Appellate Bench was unanimous: section 28 "is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam in so far as it provides for extinguishment of the right in the property at the determination of the period prescribed for instituting a suit for possession of the said property". The decision took effect from 31 August 1991, when section 28 to that extent ceased to have effect.

Article 144 was later omitted from the Act by Act II of 1995.

What happened in the 2025 case

An owner had held his land since 1953. Part of it, 32 shares, was under an old mortgage. In March 1981 another man bought the mortgagee's rights over that part (paragraph 3).

The owner sued to redeem his land. The appellate court decreed the suit, and the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench, dismissed the mortgagee's revision on 27 February 2015 (paragraph 1).

In the Supreme Court the mortgagee argued that the mortgage was more than sixty years old, so redemption was time barred under Article 148, which he said Maqbool Ahmad did not touch (paragraphs 5 and 7).

What the Supreme Court said

A bench of Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel decided the petition on 13 January 2025.

The Court held the suit was in time anyway: the purchase of the mortgagee's rights and his possession counted as acknowledgements under sections 19 and 20(2) of the Limitation Act, so limitation ran afresh (paragraph 7).

It added that even if the suit were time barred, mere lapse of time could not deprive the owner of his ownership, and the mortgagee would not become owner automatically. "Simply efflux of time would not deprive an owner from his ownership rights." After the cut-off date of 31 August 1991, no one can claim a right under the law of prescription, and "the principle of prescription has been buried along with the law once for all" (paragraph 8).

Leave was refused. The Court directed the executing court to restore possession to the owner, hopefully within three months, without the mortgage money, because the mortgagee had already received more than that from the land (paragraph 10).

The case at a glance

Facts: An owner since 1953 sued to redeem 32 shares of his land from a man who bought the mortgagee's rights in March 1981. The appellate court decreed the suit; the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench, dismissed the revision on 27 February 2015. The mortgagee argued the claim was barred after sixty years under Article 148.
The question: Whether the owner's suit for redemption was time barred, and whether lapse of time could pass ownership to the mortgagee.
What the Court held: The suit was within time because of acknowledgements under sections 19 and 20(2). Even if it were barred, lapse of time does not deprive an owner of ownership. Leave refused; possession to be restored.
Why: Under Maqbool Ahmad, after 31 August 1991 no one can claim title by prescription. Title by prescription needed a court decree before that date; the essence of Maqbool Ahmad also applies against Article 148.
Limits: The 2025 case was about a mortgage and was decided mainly on acknowledgement. The 1991 order dealt with section 28 of the Limitation Act. Time limits for filing suits still exist, and a time barred remedy can be refused. Whether a decree of prescription obtained before 31 August 1991 stands depends on its facts.

In the Court’s words

“section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (Act No.IX of 1908) is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam in so far as it provides for extinguishment of the right in the property at the determination of the period prescribed for instituting a suit for possession of the said property.”
1991 SCMR 2063, para Order of the Court

The law it relies on

Limitation Act, 1908 First Schedule, Art.144

Part VIII (twelve years). The article now reads: "144. * * * [Footnote: Omitted by Act. II of 1995, s.3.]"

Limitation Act, 1908 s.28

The section that extinguished the owner's right to property once the period for a suit for possession expired. Held repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam to that extent, with effect from 31 August 1991 (1991 SCMR 2063).

What this does not mean

It does not mean there are no time limits. Suits must still be filed in time, and a court can refuse a remedy that is time barred. What time alone cannot do is take away ownership.
It does not mean every long occupier is a trespasser. A tenant, a mortgagee or a buyer may have his own rights, which depend on his documents and the facts.
It does not undo a decree of title by prescription that a court passed before 31 August 1991. The 2025 judgment says such decrees are the exception.

Questions people ask

Someone has been on my land for more than twelve years. Have I lost it?

Not because of time alone. Since 31 August 1991 the rule that extinguished an owner's title after the limitation period has had no effect (1991 SCMR 2063), and in 2025 the Supreme Court said simply efflux of time does not deprive an owner of ownership (2025 SCMR 1018). Speak to a lawyer about the right suit and its time limit.

Can I claim land because I have possessed it for years?

The Supreme Court said in 2025 SCMR 1018 that after 31 August 1991 no one can claim a right under the law of prescription. Possession is not ownership.

Is Article 144 of the Limitation Act still in force?

No. The Act now shows Article 144 as omitted by Act II of 1995.

Check yourself

True or false? “12 years on someone's land, and it's yours.”

Next one: true or false? “If I pay my rent on time, the landlord can never make me leave.”

Sources

Maqbool Ahmad v. Hakoomat-e-Pakistan, 1991 SCMR 2063 (Supreme Court of Pakistan (Shariat Appellate Bench), Effective 31 August 1991), paras Order of the Court
Section 28 of the Limitation Act repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam in so far as it extinguished the right in the property; effect from 31 August 1991. verified against the reported order
Pioa Shah v. Amin Khan and others, 2025 SCMR 1018 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 13 January 2025), paras 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10
Simply efflux of time would not deprive an owner of ownership; after 31 August 1991 no right can be claimed by prescription; leave refused. verified against full text Supreme Court of Pakistan (judgment PDF)
Limitation Act, 1908, First Schedule, Art.144 text checked in FAI Statute Search Pakistan Code

Every quote and section above is traced to the full judgment or statute text by an automatic check that runs on every update.

What the reel says

Read the words of the reel

Heard this one? "Hold someone's land for 12 years, and it becomes yours." Wrong.

That was the old law: Article 144 and section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908.

In 1991 the Supreme Court's Shariat Appellate Bench held them against the injunctions of Islam, with effect from 31 August 1991 (1991 SCMR 2063). Article 144 was later omitted from the Act (Act II of 1995).

In 2025 the Supreme Court said it again: "Simply efflux of time would not deprive an owner from his ownership rights" (2025 SCMR 1018).

Possession is not ownership. In a land dispute, check the papers and talk to your lawyer.

Find rulings like this in FAI Legal's Judgment Search.

Educational legal information, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. Speak to a qualified lawyer about your situation. Reading this page does not create a lawyer and client relationship. Review status: Pending advocate review. How we check.