Thursday, November 19, 2009

Registration Act Cases

PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 836
Present to: AMIR ALAM KHAN
HABIB CREDIT AND EXCHANGE BANK LTD. VersusHAMALIYA TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. and others
-S. 2(6)-Machinery attached to earth whether movable or immovable property-Expression "attached to earth" has been used in main S. 2 of Registration Act 1908, as immovable property while in clause "c" of the section, same expression has been used to exclude machinery attached to earth from definition of immovable property when it is dealt with apart from land i.e, movable property would be come immovable property by its being attached to earth while the same would not become immovable property when it was dealt with apart from land-No absolute rule could, thus, be laid down that machinery attached to or embedded in earth should always be treated as immovable property, therefore, intention of person dealing with such property would have to be gathered from case to case-Where value of machinery was separately assessed and not thereof was also offered separately which was accepted as such by official Liquidator, and approved by Court, such machinery would be deemed to have been dealt, with apart from the land and building of the mill in question-Machinary in prosecute case was, thus, deemed to be movable and the same could be sold to applicant under receipt duly executed under relevant law.
Judgement Result: Orders accordingly.
PLJ 2009 Supreme Court 423
Present to: Nasir-ul Mulk & Mian Hamid Farooq
Mst. NAGINA BEGUM VersusMst. TAHZIM AKHTAR & others
----Ss. 123 & 129--Registration Act, (XVI of 1908) S. 17--Held: Purpose of making a gift of an immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses, yet Section 129 of Transfer of Property Act, provides that sections relating to gifts shall not affect any rule of Muhammaden Law.
Judgement Result: Appeal dismissed
PLJ 2009 Supreme Court 423
Present to: Nasir-ul Mulk & Mian Hamid Farooq
Mst. NAGINA BEGUM VersusMst. TAHZIM AKHTAR & others
----Ss. 123 & 129--Registration Act, (XVI of 1908) S. 17--Gift--Applicability--A gift by a Muslim can be completed even without any writing and such gifts are expressly excluded from the operation of the Transfer of Property Act.
Judgement Result: Appeal dismissed.
PLJ 2009 Lahore High Court 677
Present to: Syed Asghar Haider
HIRA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. through Director VersusEXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER REVENUE, KASUR and 4 others
----Ss. 39 & 40--Registration Act, 1908, S. 17--Change of name be incorporated in the revenue record--Direction to patwari to incorporate the necessary change--Revenue staff stated that the petitioner was a new entity and, therefore, it was required to get a formal sale-deed registered in its name--Demand made by revenue department was illegal and ultra vires of law--Validity--Petitioner company is governed by provisions of Companies Ordinance--S. 39 of Company Ordinance envisages and authorizes a company to change the name, if it so desires with the approval of registrar and S. 40 authorizes registration of the name and its effect thereon--Held: After invoking these provisions the company opted to change its name but remains the legal entity--Petitioner company has not ventured any exercise violating the exceptions contained in S. 17(2) because no transfer of immovable property has taken place, identity of the petitioner was same, therefore, it falls within exception to S. 14 of Registration Act--Petitioner company acted u/S. 39 & 40 of Companies Ordinance, which do not contemplate transfer of any property--Petition was allowed.
Judgement Result: Petition allowed.
PLJ 2008 Lahore High Court 149
Present to: Muhammad Muzammal Khan
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others VersusMUKHTAR AHMAD and 2 others
----S. 17--Agreement of exchange--Un-registred document--Entitlement--Provisions of--Mere agreement to exchange does not create any title, right or interest in the property agreed to be exchanged, when such document was not reported to revenue officials including any of Patwaris of the villeges.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed
PLJ 2006 SC-AJ&K 96
Present to: Kh. Muhammad Saeed, C.J. & Syed Manzoor Hussain Gilani
MUHAMMAD YASIN (alias Punoo) and 2 others VersusMUHAMMAD YUNUS and 2 others
----S. 17 [as applicable in Azad Jammu and Kashmir]--Non-registration of document required to be registered under S. 17, Registration Act--Effect--Any document which is required to be compulsorily registerable would not be received in evidence, if it is not registered--Un-registered sale-deed relied upon does not confer any right, nor can the same be received in evidence at any stage of proceedings in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
Judgement Result: Appeal dismissed.
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1077
Present to: Sh. Hakim Ali
Hafiz MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VersusDEPUTY DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE) TEHSIL BAHAWALPUR & another
----S. 17(6)(ii)--Decree had been exempted from registration therefore, the pre-emption decrees did not require to register with the sub-registrar of the area concerned--Petition accepted.
Judgement Result: Petition accepted.
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1196
Present to: Sh. Azmat Saeed and Mian Hamid Farooq
ERUM JAFARI VersusK.A.S.B. BANK, GULBERG-III, LAHORE through its MANAGER and 10 others
----Ss. 17 & 28--Registration of a document--Every document would be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate.
Judgement Result: Appeal dismissed.
PLJ 2005 Lahore High Court 1118
Present to: Muhammad Muzammal Khan
Sh. MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 2 others VersusSH. ALA-UD-DIN and others
----S. 17--Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54--Property situated within Municipal limits--Mode for transfer--Property in question, being situated within Municipal limits, could only be transferred through registered document and not otherwise, in terms of Registration Act, 1908.
Judgement Result: Revision dismissed.
PLJ 2005 Lahore High Court 1118
Present to: Muhammad Muzammal Khan
Sh. MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 2 others VersusSH. ALA-UD-DIN and others
----S. 53-A--Registration Act (IX of 1908), S. 17--Transfer of Urban immovable property in lieu of dower through agreement to sell--Such transfer could not be effected through agreement in question, unless the same was registered in terms of S. 17 of Registration Act, 1908.
Judgement Result: Revision dismissed.
PLJ 2004 Peshawar High Court 221
Present to: TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI
SHER BAHADUR etc VersusMIR AKBAR etc
-- Art. 129-Registration Act 1908-Ss. 17 & 49-Held : Registered document though was subsequently executed would take precedence over the earlier un-registered one, relating to the same suit property.
Judgement Result: Civil revision accepted.
PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 700
Present to: CH. IJAZ AHMAD
MUHAMMAD ASHIQ and 3 others VersusMUHAMMAD ASLAM and another
-S. 17-A Document through which sale is not completed is not compulsorily registerable under the Registration Act.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.
PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 1594
Present to: MlAN SAQIB NlSAR
Dr. NISAR ALI KHAN and another VersusPAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION KARACHI AIRPORT (KARACHI) through CHAIRMAN and another
--S. 13(3) First Proviso-Registration Act, 1908, S. 17(d), 49-Eviction of tenant on ground of personal requirement-Ejectment application was allowed-Preferred an appeal accepted-Assailed-Petitiori for-Existence of an agreement between tenants and previous owner, covering the period of tenancy beyond one year, but such agreement had not been registered u/S. 17 of Registration Act 1908--Held: Agreement would only be considered as creating a valid tenancy for less than a year, but for the remaining period would have no legal effect-In such circumstances landlord was not barred to seek eviction on the ground of his personal requirement, before the time stipulated in that unregistered agreement.
Judgement Result: Appeal accepted.
PLJ 2003 Supreme Court 529
Present to: QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ ; DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR,
SIRAJ DIN and others VersusGHULAM NABI and others
-S. 17(b)~Transfer of property on basis of general Power-of-Attorney~No such general power-of-attorney was produced in evidence before Trial Court, therefore same was being in non-existence and question of its validity does not arise at ail-Any document that purports to create right title or interest in immovable property in terms of S. 17(b) of Registration Act, 1908, requires registration compulsory~Power-of-Attorney in question, having riot been got registered its mere registration by Notary Public was not sufficient to meet requirements of law.
Judgement Result: Leave refused
PLJ 2001 Lahore High Court 1293
Present to: TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI
Mst. FAfZ ELAHI VersusSyed BASHIR ALI SHAH
-Ss. 17 & 49 Un-registered document-Effect-Perusal of document would show that donor was creating a right in respondent donee in respect of property in question through said document in presento-Document in question, no where shows that the writing there in wa;s merely by way of acknowledgement of a part oral gift made by donor in favour of donee-Even if such document-was assumed to be a Tamleeknama, same would not create any valid gift in favour of donee being an un-registered document-Such document, therefore, would not create any right in favour of donee respondent, therefore, decree, and judgments of Courts below decreeing respondents suit were set aside in the circumstnaces.
JudgementPLJ 2001 Lahore High Court 1293
Present to: TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI
Mst. FAfZ ELAHI VersusSyed BASHIR ALI SHAH
-S. 17-Document which itself purports to create right in the donee by way of gift in the land, the same was compulsory registerable.
Judgement Result: Revision accepted.
Result: Revision accepted.
PLJ 2007 Tax Cases 137
Present to: Ijaz-ul-Hassan and Fazal-ur-Rehman Khan
M/s. KABIR MEDICAL COLLEGE, PESHAWAR VersusC.I.T., PESHAWAR
----Clause 86-A--Second Schedule--Registration Act, (XVI of 1908), S. 18(d)--References--Exemption matter--Insufficient investment--Rent deed had been executed but it was neither dated nor it had been registered because it was for a period of 2 years and required compulsory registration and the ITAT had rightly held that from the same it cannot be conclusively held that the institutions were set up by the target date--Held: Institutions were not set up on or before target date, that the investment was not sufficient to bring into existence the two institutions and that the recognition of the two institutions by PMDC, though correspondence started with it before the target date, was not a condition precedent--References dismissed.
Judgement Result: References rejected.
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1196
Present to: Sh. Azmat Saeed and Mian Hamid Farooq
ERUM JAFARI VersusK.A.S.B. BANK, GULBERG-III, LAHORE through its MANAGER and 10 others
----Ss. 17 & 28--Registration of a document--Every document would be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate.
JudgePLJ 2007 Peshawar High Court 92
Present to: Muhammad Raza Khan
FIRDOOS SHAH VersusMst. MEMOON BIBI
----Ss. 32 & 33--Contract Act, (IX of 1872), S. 215--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 115--Revisional jurisdiction--Registration of power of attorney for purpose of management and disposal of property--Responsibility of registration authority--Principal--Validity--Attorney had authority to enter into transaction thereto he was duty bound to explain that he had rendered true accounts of transaction to principal--If enters into bargain of sale, he receives the consideration on behalf of the rpincipal which has to be refunded and in case of an exchange he has to explain true value of the property.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed
ment Result: Appeal dismissed.
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1183
Present to: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir
Mrs. MUZNA SAQLAIN ALVI VersusSUB-REGISTRAR, NISHTAR TOWN, LAHORE and another
----Ss. 32 & 38--Mandatory in nature--Non compliance of the provisions--Effect on registration of document--Provisions are mandatory in nature and not directory and non-compliance of these provisions will make the document null and void.
Judgement Result: Petition allowed.
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1183
Present to: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir
Mrs. MUZNA SAQLAIN ALVI VersusSUB-REGISTRAR, NISHTAR TOWN, LAHORE and another
----Ss. 32 & 33--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--Art. 199--Power of attorney--Power of attorney can be registered by the registrar or Sub-registrar in whose districts or sub district the principal resides--Ppower of attorney executed before and authenticated by an office within whose jurisdiction the principal temporarily resides is not invalid.
Judgement Result: Petition allowed.
PLJ 2007 Peshawar High Court 92
Present to: Muhammad Raza Khan
FIRDOOS SHAH VersusMst. MEMOON BIBI
----Ss. 32 & 33--Contract Act, (IX of 1872), S. 215--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 115--Revisional jurisdiction--Registration of power of attorney for purpose of management and disposal of property--Responsibility of registration authority--Principal--Validity--Attorney had authority to enter into transaction thereto he was duty bound to explain that he had rendered true accounts of transaction to principal--If enters into bargain of sale, he receives the consideration on behalf of the rpincipal which has to be refunded and in case of an exchange he has to explain true value of the property.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1183
Present to: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir
Mrs. MUZNA SAQLAIN ALVI VersusSUB-REGISTRAR, NISHTAR TOWN, LAHORE and another
----Ss. 32 & 33--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--Art. 199--Power of attorney--Power of attorney can be registered by the registrar or Sub-registrar in whose districts or sub district the principal resides--Ppower of attorney executed before and authenticated by an office within whose jurisdiction the principal temporarily resides is not invalid.
Judgement Result: Petition allowed.
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1183
Present to: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir
Mrs. MUZNA SAQLAIN ALVI VersusSUB-REGISTRAR, NISHTAR TOWN, LAHORE and another
----Ss. 34 & 35--Duty of registering authority--Registration officer is bound to register the document if the requirements of Sections 34 & 35 of Registration Act prescribing the procedure for satisfaction of the registering authority are fulfilled.
Judgement Result: Petition allowed.
PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 450
Present to: M. AKHTAR SHABBIR
MAHMOOD ELAHI PARACHA VersusDEPUTY DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), MANDI BAHAUDDIN. and another
--Ss. 172 & 175-Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), S. 34-Jurisdiction of Revenue Officer-Extent of-Registered sale-deed cannot be challenged before Revenue Officer-Neither West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967, nor colonization of Government (Lands) Act 1912, empowers Revenue officer to take cognizance of genuiness or ingenuineness of registered document-Registered sale-deed can only be challenged through civil suit which is competent to declare same as forged and fabricated.
Judgement Result: Petition accepted
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1183
Present to: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir
Mrs. MUZNA SAQLAIN ALVI VersusSUB-REGISTRAR, NISHTAR TOWN, LAHORE and another
----Ss. 34 & 35--Duty of registering authority--Registration officer is bound to register the document if the requirements of Sections 34 & 35 of Registration Act prescribing the procedure for satisfaction of the registering authority are fulfilled.
Judgement Result: Petition allowed.
PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1183
Present to: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir
Mrs. MUZNA SAQLAIN ALVI VersusSUB-REGISTRAR, NISHTAR TOWN, LAHORE and another
----Ss. 32 & 38--Mandatory in nature--Non compliance of the provisions--Effect on registration of document--Provisions are mandatory in nature and not directory and non-compliance of these provisions will make the document null and void.
Judgement Result: Petition allowed.
PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 1109
Present to: Sayed Zahid Hussain
MUNIR AHMAD and 7 others VersusBASHIR AHMAD ANJUM and 2 others
----S. 47--Registration of a document--Date of execution--Held: Date of execution of document will be the one on which it was signed by the parties.
Judgement Result: Appeal dismissed.
PLJ 2000 SC-AJ&K 65
Present to: SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN C. J., BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI
Rqja MUHAMMAD GHAZAN VersusCivil Review
-S. 47--Execution of sale-deed on 12.8.1991, but said sale-deed wasregistered on 19.8.1991--Plaintiff/petitioner filed suit for pre-emption on basis of sale-deed registered on 15.8.1991 being Co-sharer-Decreed to~ Appeal against-Acceptance of-Appeal to High Court which was accepted-Appeal against to Supreme Court which was accepted in view of provisions of Section 47 of Act, 1908--Review petition against-Whether application of Section 47 of Act, 1908 is confined only between parties to document or it also extends to any third party-Question of--While interpreting a statutory provision, a Court of law should not read words in such a provision which are not there-Application of 47 of Registration Act, cannot be confined only to parties to document; it equally applies to a third person or for that matter to a pre-emptor-Petition dismissed.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment