2006 PLP 1770 (CLC)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

On 8-11-2000 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents. I will be referring to this plaint in some detail in the latter part of my judgment. The plaint in the suit was rejected by the learned trial Court on 20-9-2001 while a first appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Layyah on 18-6-2002. I may note here that both these orders referred to a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan passed on 17-7-2000 in C.P. No.175 of 2000.

2. Mr. S.M. Jehangir Iqbal Bokhari, Advocate/learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan could not have been made the basis for rejection of the plaint for the simple reason that his clients were not a party to the same while the contents of the plaint did disclose a cause of action. He particularly draws my attention to an order, dated 7-1-2003 which appears to have been passed in Chamber by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.M.A. No.21 of 2001 in C.P. No.1075 of 2000 whereby it has been observed that the present petitioners can plead before the trial Court as they were not parties to the said C.P. or the proceedings out of which it has arisen. They can maintain the suit for establishment of their rights which plea shall be decided in accordance with law. He insists that the learned trial Court ought to have framed issues arising out of the pleadings on record and to have recorded evidence and then to have decided the suit. Mian Arshad Latif, Advocate/learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, contends that the reasons given by learned Additional District Judge, Layyah, for upholding the order of rejection of plaint are absolutely valid and do not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. He had cited the cases of Syed Fakhar Imam Shah and others v. Abdul Haq (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2006 SCMR 550; Mian Abdul Qayyum v. Dr. Muhammad Akram Khan 1982 SCMR 1024 and Michhu Kuanr and others Raghu Jena and others AIR 1961 Orissa 19.

3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Now the said plaint filed by the petitioners narrates that the suit-land was owned by Gul Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. He sold the land to Faiz Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 and-2, vide registered sale-deed dated 6-6-1951. On the basis of this registered sale-deed, Mutation No.3051 was entered on 28-5-1969 and further he got entered Mutation No.3052 of sale in favour of the respondents Nos.3 to

17. The mutations could not be got attested whereupon it was settled between Gul Muhammad and respondents Nos.1 to 17 that the consideration be returned to the said respondents Nos.1 to 17 and the land will remain the ownership of Gul Muhammad. Consequent of this agreement, Gul Muhammad return the consideration to respondents Nos.1, to 17 in presence of witnesses and the land remained his ownership and the mutations were rejected in the year 1977. After the said cancellation of agreement to sell and return of consideration, respondents Nos.1 to 17 were left with no title in the suit-land and the petitioners are continuing in possession. It was then stated that 4/5 days ago, the petitioners came to know that the respondent No.18 had filed a pre-emption suit qua the sale by Faiz Muhammad in favour of respondents Nos.3 to 17 which was decreed in his favour and all appeals, etc. were dismissed and the respondent No.18 is taking steps to execute the said decree. All the said proceedings are fraudf'ilent as the agreement to sell had been cancelled upon return of consideration and that is why the mutations were rejected on 29-9-1977. Thereafter, it was stated as follows:-- rrr3~ r J to L l (s c(J~(~' l I el/iY , vlJ~ t,,J;r'(1C)-l't ,sa''(f/)Gif.),!; ' iio to() [~i~ riot- f ly.~>f I L/'arc t With these averments, they sought a declaration that the petitioners are the owners in possession of the suit-land whereas the respondents have nothing to do with it and that the registered sale-deed dated 6-6-1951 in favour of respondent No.1 stands cancelled as a result of return of consideration and ineffective and respondent No. 1 was not entitled to alienate the land on the basis of the said registered document and consequently Mutations Nos.3051 and 3052 and all the judgments and decrees passed in the pre-emption suits are illegal and void being result of fraud and collusion inter se the respondents.

4. Now a reading of the said judgment dated 17-7-2000 of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No.1075 of 2000 as also of this Court dated 16-5-2000 in R.S.A. No.25 of 1996 which was impugned in the said C.P. would show that the pre-emption suit was filed against respondents Nos.3 to 17 on 30-5-1970. It was decreed by the learned trial Court on 13-1-1982. The first appeal tiled by the said vendees was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Layyah, on 19-3-1996. R.S.A. No.25 of 1996 was filed by the respondent No.I8 was allowed on 16-5-2000. C.P. No.1075 of 2000 was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan on 17-7-2000. As noted by me above, the present suit was filed by the petitioners on 8-11-2000.

5. Now coming back to the plaint, it stands admitted in the plaint without any demur that Gul Muhammad sold away the land to Faiz Muhammad vide registered sale-deed dated 6-6-1951. According to copy of Mutation No.651 referred to in para.2 of the plaint, this mutation was rejected on 29-9-1977 that none is present. So far as Mutation No.3052 is concerned (i.e. the subject-matter of the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court), on 30-5-1969, the Revenue Officer recorded the statement of Faiz Muhammad vendor and the vendees as to the factutn of sale and receipt of consideration and deliver of possession.

6. Under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 as also the Land Records Manual, a Revenue Officer is bound by law to attest a mutation on the basis of a registered deed and to incorporate the same in the Revenue Records. Thus, the cancellation of the mutation would be of no avail. Now the reason recorded for cancellation i.e. none is present is not a valid reason. Section 42(7) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 (section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887) provides a clear exception that in case of acquisition of the rights by ,a registered deed, the mutation can be taken up and orders passed under section 42(6) in the absence of the parties.

7. Now as noted by me above, there is no dispute that Gul Muhammad had sold away land for consideration to Faiz Muhammad by means of a registered sale-deed. It started to operate from the date of the sale-deed which is dated 6-6-1951. The document having been duly registered, all rights, title and interest of Gul Muhammad extinguished in the land and accrued in favour of Faiz Muhammad who sold it to the other respondent resulting in filing of the pre-emption suit by respondent No.18.

8. Now the question arises that even if the entire plaint is considered to be correct as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to the relief being prayed for by them. The answer had to be in the negative. This would be apparent upon a plain reading of sections 47, 48 an d 50 read with section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 as also with reference to the provisions of section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaint does not at all disclose that the registered document was either void or voidable at the instance of Gul Muhammad or for that matter Faiz Muhammad vendee. It records a transfer of immovable property by Gul Muhammad to Faiz Muhammad for consideration. Even if it be admitted that Gul Muhammad returned the consideration although upon a plain reading of para.2 itself the allegation absolutely is baseless, the reason being that the allegation is that the consideration was returned not only to Faiz Muhammad but also to his vendees by Gul Muhammad. Be that as it may the repayment of the consideration would not constitute cancellation of a registered sale-deed and consequently extinguishments of the title of the vendees and consequently recreation of title in Gul Muhammad vendor. Thus, even if the said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is wholly kept out of consideration. Upon a plain reading of the plaint, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief being prayed for by them. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed without any orders as to costs. S.M.B./K-41/L Petition dismissed.