“The law of the land is also the law of generations.”
In Pakistan, few legal disputes carry the same level of emotional and generational weight as partition suits. A straightforward demand to divide property may lead to a long and costly legal war that leads to drainage of resources, the division of families, and casting long shadows over subsequent generations. The focus here is precisely on civil suits for partition of immovable property and the suffering they inflict through the Pakistani legal system for several decades.
The cornerstone of this area is the Partition Act of 1893, passed by the Imperial Legislative Council in India to manage the division of joint property. This law provided courts with discretion to order the sale of property if physical division was impractical. Its legacy continues across most of Pakistan, except in Punjab, where the Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012, now governs such matters. Islamabad Capital Territory, Balochistan, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa still primarily rely on the 1893 Act. Though these statutes differ in form, their substance and objectives remain largely aligned.
Partition suits in Pakistan derive from a time-tested Roman maxim: “nemo in communione potest invitus detineri” — no one can be compelled to remain in co-ownership against their will. A co-owner may, at any time, seek partition of jointly owned property. Although Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 prescribes a six-year limitation period for such suits, Pakistani courts have consistently held that the right to seek partition is a continuing right, and thus not barred by limitation.
Despite the legal clarity, the devil is in the details. In practice, partition litigation is gruelling. Over 80% of property disputes in Pakistan involve family members, and many litigants admit they are either enduring or leaving unresolved partition cases for the next generation to handle. Even where the law seeks expediency, procedure becomes a prison.
In addition, the Punjab Partition Act 2012 aims to achieve this result within a timeframe of six months. Yet, in reality, many cases drag on for 10 to 30 years. The primary reasons for this are inefficient procedures, overburdened courts, and delaying tactics by parties who wish to frustrate rightful claims. The very soul of the 2012 Act was for courts to review partition issues holistically and swiftly determine ownership shares. However, lower courts continue to require evidence and documentation at every step of the process, even when the ownership is uncontested, defeating the statute’s very spirit.
An additional problem is the weaponization of partition litigation. Often, parties who hope to keep things together may file frivolous objections, revisions, and stay applications just to stall the process. Those who guide such schemes must be held accountable through stricter judicial oversight and cost penalties. Otherwise, the entire system remains a hostage to procedural manipulation.
Meanwhile, Judges who are overwhelmed with numerous cases daily often prioritize quantity over justice to meet unit targets. But as the legal maxim teaches us: “Fiat justitia ruat caelum” — let justice be done though the heavens fall. Justice in partition suits should be swift and firm, mainly because it directly affects property rights, family relations, and generational wealth.
One cannot disregard the contrast with modern legal systems. For instance, the UK, where the original Partition Act was approved by Parliament in 1893, has moved far beyond it. There, quick procedures, will implementation, ADR mechanisms, and if needed, obligatory mediation, work to settle different property disputes. Pakistan must take cues from such models. Setting up summary trials for partition suits as an option where ownership is not being disputed can save a lot of time and cut years of peripheral litigation.
In addition, facilities for court-annexed mediation should be improved so that skilled mediators help resolve conflicts before they escalate into full-blown trials. Mediation cannot take over the authority of final adjudication, but it can significantly help reduce hostility, costs, and time.
The trauma of such litigation is real and systemic. It is not simply a matter of old laws, but of outdated mindsets. While judges do their best within the system’s limitations, reforms must be institutional. Civil courts should evolve with the new era and be equipped with new land demarcation experts, updated land records, and digitized property registries to enable accurate and timely enforcement of decrees.
Partition suits should not become inheritances of grief, but should be pathways to justice, clarity, and peaceful resolution among co-owners. Legal systems exist not merely to decide, but to resolve. We must cast aside the illusion that time alone brings justice. It is high time to reorient the law of partition from a colonial relic to a contemporary tool — one that delivers justice not in generations, but in time.
