Thursday, November 19, 2009

Registration Act Cases

PLJ 2004 Supreme Court 53
Present to: MUNIR A. SHEIKH; IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRYAND
MUSHTAQ AHMAD and others VersusMUHAMMAD SAEED and others
-S. 48--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185-Previous agreement of sale in favour of appellant, being registered document whether would take preference over subsequent un-registered agreement of sale in favour of respondent--In terms of S. 48 of Registration Act 190S, where vendee under un-registered document/agreement has been delivered possession, principle that registered document would take preference over un-registered document would not be applicable-Delivery of possession in terms of subsequent un-regi=t,ered agreement of sale having been admitted by appellant, such fact could not in any manner detract from rights of respondent under the law as holder of agreement/sale where under possession of land in question was delivered to him-Findhig of fact recorded by First Appellate Court and affirmed by High Court was maintained.
Judgement Result: Appeal dismissed.
PLJ 2004 Supreme Court 53
Present to: MUNIR A. SHEIKH; IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRYAND
MUSHTAQ AHMAD and others VersusMUHAMMAD SAEED and others
-S. 48--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185-Previous agreement of sale in favour of appellant, being registered document whether would take preference over subsequent un-registered agreement of sale in favour of respondent--In terms of S. 48 of Registration Act 190S, where vendee under un-registered document/agreement has been delivered possession, principle that registered document would take preference over un-registered document would not be applicable-Delivery of possession in terms of subsequent un-regi=t,ered agreement of sale having been admitted by appellant, such fact could not in any manner detract from rights of respondent under the law as holder of agreement/sale where under possession of land in question was delivered to him-Findhig of fact recorded by First Appellate Court and affirmed by High Court was maintained.
Judgement Result: Appeal 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 Supreme Court 490
Present to: SH. RlAZ AHMAD, C.J. & JAVED IQBAL, J.
ANWAR KHAN VersusABDUL MANAF
-S. 49-Partition of property by way of family arrangement-Such settlement/agreement is not compulsorily registerable.
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 2002 Lahore High Court 1359
Present to: ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA
ALI MUHAMMAD (deceased) through his Legal Representatives VersusGHULAM NABI and another
--S. 8-Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882), S. 53-A-Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 49-Un registered sale-deed-Evidentiary value of-- Onus to prove title deed was on respondents who failed to discharge the same-person who claims or alleges anything in pleadings could prove ar.d if he fails to do so, his claim would be rejected-Where a person transfers possession of property on basis of unregistered sale-deed, transferor cannot enforce right against transferee in respect qf that property exception a right provided for in that deed.
Judgement Result: Appeal accepted.
PLJ 2002 Lahore High Court 1359
Present to: ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA
ALI MUHAMMAD (deceased) through his Legal Representatives VersusGHULAM NABI and another
--S. 53-A-Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 49-Un-registered sale-deed did not prove title of respondents in property in question-Trail Court fell in error which granting decree for possession under S. 8 of specific Relief Act, 1877 in favour of respondents as much appeal of appellant had wrongly been dismissed by misreading evidence of parties-Courts below had committed material irregularity and illegality which were set aside- Suit for possession of respondent would stand dismissed in circumstances.
Judgement Result: Appeal accepted.
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.
Judgement Result: Revision accepted.
PLJ 2008 Lahore High Court 409
Present to: Syed Asghar Haider and Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq
GHULAM YASIN VersusDISTRICT OFFICER (R), JUDGE and 2 others
----Ss. 51 & 52(c)--Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, S. 3--Document for registration--Dishonestly in collusion--Relief from Civil Court--Legality--Official respondents have acted dishonestly in collusion with private respondent who were at the time unable to obtain any relief from Civil Court except a permission to withdraw and dismissal as unconditionally while failing to lead any evidence in support of their plea--ICA allowed.
Judgement Result: ICA allowed.
PLJ 2008 Lahore High Court 412
Present to: Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq
MUHAMMAD ARIF and 12 others VersusMUHAMMAD HAFEEZ and 32 others
----S. 115--Inheritance mutation--Joint possession--Factum of minority--Minor at the time of sale--Beneficiary to prove the transaction as a fact--Question of title--Possibility cannot be ruled out--A mutation does neither confer any title nor, in fact, is evidence of title--Plea of adverse possession and plea of title in the same breath are mutually destructive--Admittedly, the land is joint and actual possession is not of any relevance--Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was not in possession--Nothing, therefore, turns on such possession which for all purposes inures for benefit of petitioners as well till such time partition is effected--Held: High Court is inclined to grant a chance to respondents, to prove a valid sale as possibility cannot be ruled out in view of the peculiar circumstances of such case that they were mis-led by the form of issue.
Judgement Result: Case remanded.
PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 226
Present to: Muhammad Jehangir Arshad
MUNAWAR HUSSAIN, and 2 others VersusAMANAT ALI and 6 others
----Ss. 52, 58 & 60--Endorsement documents by Sub-Registrar--Presumption of correctness--Held: Endorsement by Sub-Registrar on a document contains presumption of correctness and no more authenticated documentry evidence could be made available to prove payment of consideration as to facts entered in the documents/certificates are presumed to have occurred and the said endorsement/certificate is admissible as evidence and hence presumed to be genuine.
Judgement Result: Revision accepted
PLJ 2009 Lahore High Court 119
Present to: Syed Asghar Haider
Malik AHMAD BAKHSH VersusTEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, ARIFWALA DISTT. PAKPATTAN SHARIF and 3 others
----Ss. 58, 59 & 60--Duties of the Registration Officer--Registrations officer is under a bounden duty under Ss. 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, to register every document presented to him in accordance with these sections, of course, those document which suffer from any legal impediment recognized by law.
Judgement Result: Petition allowed
PLJ 2008 Lahore High Court 409
Present to: Syed Asghar Haider and Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq
GHULAM YASIN VersusDISTRICT OFFICER (R), JUDGE and 2 others
----Ss. 58 to 61--Scope of--Presentation of document for registration--Registering Officer is bound to register document--Minor an idiot or lunatic--Refusal to register the document--Validity--Upon the presentation of a document for registration, upon the appearance of the person executing the document and on his satisfaction that the documents represented themselves to be and if admitted the execution of document a Registering Officer is bound to register a document in accordance with Registration Act--If a person denies the execution of appears to be minor, an idiat or a lunatic or execution is denied by LRs of deceased execution, Registering Officer shall refuse to register the document.
Judgement Result: ICA allowed.
PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 226
Present to: Muhammad Jehangir Arshad
MUNAWAR HUSSAIN, and 2 others VersusAMANAT ALI and 6 others
----Ss. 52, 58 & 60--Endorsement documents by Sub-Registrar--Presumption of correctness--Held: Endorsement by Sub-Registrar on a document contains presumption of correctness and no more authenticated documentry evidence could be made available to prove payment of consideration as to facts entered in the documents/certificates are presumed to have occurred and the said endorsement/certificate is admissible as evidence and hence presumed to be genuine.
Judgement Result: Revision accepted
PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 450
Present to: M. AKHTAR SHABBIR
MAHMOOD ELAHI PARACHA VersusDEPUTY DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), MANDI BAHAUDDIN. and another
-Ss. 58, 59 & 60-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9-Registered documents--Presumption-Adjudication with regard to genuineness/ ingenuniness-Presumption of truth is attached to registered documents under Sections 58 to 60 of Registration Act 1908-Adjudication with regard to genuineness/ingenuiness of registered documents can be made by Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Civil Court under S. 9 of C.P.C.
Judgement Result: Petition accepted.
PLJ 2009 Lahore High Court 119
Present to: Syed Asghar Haider
Malik AHMAD BAKHSH VersusTEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, ARIFWALA DISTT. PAKPATTAN SHARIF and 3 others
----Ss. 58, 59 & 60--Duties of the Registration Officer--Registrations officer is under a bounden duty under Ss. 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, to register every document presented to him in accordance with these sections, of course, those document which suffer from any legal impediment recognized by law.
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. 58, 59 & 60-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9-Registered documents--Presumption-Adjudication with regard to genuineness/ ingenuniness-Presumption of truth is attached to registered documents under Sections 58 to 60 of Registration Act 1908-Adjudication with regard to genuineness/ingenuiness of registered documents can be made by Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Civil Court under S. 9 of C.P.C.
Judgement Result: Petition accepted
PLJ 2009 Lahore High Court 119
Present to: Syed Asghar Haider
Malik AHMAD BAKHSH VersusTEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, ARIFWALA DISTT. PAKPATTAN SHARIF and 3 others
----Ss. 58, 59 & 60--Duties of the Registration Officer--Registrations officer is under a bounden duty under Ss. 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, to register every document presented to him in accordance with these sections, of course, those document which suffer from any legal impediment recognized by law.
Judgement Result: Petition allowed
PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 226
Present to: Muhammad Jehangir Arshad
MUNAWAR HUSSAIN, and 2 others VersusAMANAT ALI and 6 others
----Ss. 52, 58 & 60--Endorsement documents by Sub-Registrar--Presumption of correctness--Held: Endorsement by Sub-Registrar on a document contains presumption of correctness and no more authenticated documentry evidence could be made available to prove payment of consideration as to facts entered in the documents/certificates are presumed to have occurred and the said endorsement/certificate is admissible as evidence and hence presumed to be genuine.
Judgement Result: Revision accepted
PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 450
Present to: M. AKHTAR SHABBIR
MAHMOOD ELAHI PARACHA VersusDEPUTY DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), MANDI BAHAUDDIN. and another
-Ss. 58, 59 & 60-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9-Registered documents--Presumption-Adjudication with regard to genuineness/ ingenuniness-Presumption of truth is attached to registered documents under Sections 58 to 60 of Registration Act 1908-Adjudication with regard to genuineness/ingenuiness of registered documents can be made by Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Civil Court under S. 9 of C.P.C.
Judgement Result: Petition accepted.
PLJ 2008 Lahore High Court 409
Present to: Syed Asghar Haider and Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq
GHULAM YASIN VersusDISTRICT OFFICER (R), JUDGE and 2 others
----Ss. 51 & 52(c)--Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, S. 3--Document for registration--Dishonestly in collusion--Relief from Civil Court--Legality--Official respondents have acted dishonestly in collusion with private respondent who were at the time unable to obtain any relief from Civil Court except a permission to withdraw and dismissal as unconditionally while failing to lead any evidence in support of their plea--ICA allowed.
Judgement Result: ICA 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 2000 Lahore High Court 429
Present to: MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ
NIAZ DIN VersusMIRZA MUHAMMAD ISMAIL etc.
-Ss. 74 & 75-Registration of sale-deed-Suit for declaration against-Decreed to-Appeal against-Acceptance of-Second Appeal against-Registrar has to "find" U/S. 75(1) of Act, 1908 that document was executed--It is this finding which enabled Registrar to make an order for registration of document, execution whereof is denied by executant/ appellant-Only piece of evidence relied upon by Registrar is alleged report of Finger Print Bureau to the effect that sale-deed bears thumb impressions of appellant-Order of Registrar does not disclose as to whether any opportunity was given to parties, particularly to appellant to file any objections or to examine alleged expert who had given said report-Order of Registrar for registration of sale-deed, declared to be without lawful authority being illegal and void-Appeal remanded to First Appellate Court to decide afresh.
Judgement Result: Appeal allowed.
PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 429
Present to: MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ
NIAZ DIN VersusMIRZA MUHAMMAD ISMAIL etc.
-Ss. 74 & 75-Registration of sale-deed-Suit for declaration against-Decreed to-Appeal against-Acceptance of-Second Appeal against-Registrar has to "find" U/S. 75(1) of Act, 1908 that document was executed--It is this finding which enabled Registrar to make an order for registration of document, execution whereof is denied by executant/ appellant-Only piece of evidence relied upon by Registrar is alleged report of Finger Print Bureau to the effect that sale-deed bears thumb impressions of appellant-Order of Registrar does not disclose as to whether any opportunity was given to parties, particularly to appellant to file any objections or to examine alleged expert who had given said report-Order of Registrar for registration of sale-deed, declared to be without lawful authority being illegal and void-Appeal remanded to First Appellate Court to decide afresh.
Judgement Result: Appeal allowed.

2 comments:

  1. ahsan where could we find the plaintiff and defendents names for a particular case?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow... I am really impressed after reading your blog. It is very informative. Property Lawyers In Karachi

    ReplyDelete