P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Mutation‑Oral sale‑Statements of parties affirming transac tion and transfer of possession recorded by Revenue Officer Mutation later attested‑Sale of same land before mutation was attested on basis of oral sale by registered deed, held, ineffective. The facts of this revision petition, briefly, are that Abdul Ghani, respondent No. 4 orally sold his total share which was 2/7th of a joint holding of 6 acres, situated in Chak No. 29, District Lahore, to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 1600. Mutation No. 361 was entered to this effect and statements of the parties, affirming the transaction and transfer of possession were recorded by the Assistant Collector on 29‑6‑

62. Final orders were postponed on a ground which is not easily understandable namely that consolidation operations were going on in the estate. The mutation, however, was finally attested on 10‑10‑1962. An appeal was filed against this order by respondents Nos.1 to 3 on the ground that the land in dispute had been sold in their favour by means of registered deed executed by Abdul Ghani, respon dent No. 4 on 2‑10‑1962, so that mutation of oral sale sanctioned in favour of the petitioner was not valid. The Collector accepted the appeal, cancelled the mutation of oral sale and directed that a fresh mutation should be sanctioned in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in accordance with the registered document. The learned Additional Commissioner, Lahore, has maintained this order in second appeal; hence this revision petition. The main point argued is that according to section 48 of the Registration Act a registered document relating to immovable property takes effect against an oral transaction only in cases of where the oral agreement has not been accompanied by delivery of possession. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the possession of the land in dispute had passed in favour of the petitioner on 29‑6‑1962 when Abdul Ghani, vendor, made a state ment before the Assistant Collector accepting the transaction and transfer of possession. The revenue records indicate that at that time possession of the land was with certain tenants who are closely related to the parties before me. As a result de facto possession of the land has presumably been passed on by these A tenants to their respective relations i.e., the two parties to the present proceedings. It can thus be asserted that at least a part pf the land was transferred to the present petitioners. It may here be mentioned that the transactions were investi gated by the police under the directions of the local Sub -Divisional Magistrate and the conclusion arrived at was that the earlier oral transaction of sale was genuine, and owing to certain village feuds Abdul Ghani had been beguiled into executing deed of sale in respect of land which he had already parted with in favour of the petitioner. The mutation sheet bears no room for doubt that the transaction was complete before the execution of registered sale deed dated 2‑10‑1962 in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to

3. As already observed the Assistant Collector should have sanctioned the mutation on 29‑6‑1962 when the statements of the parties accepting the transaction were recorded by him and the proceedings should not have been adjourned to another date. In the circumstances I would accept the revision, set aside the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and Collector and restore that of the Assistant Collector passed on 10‑10‑1967. S. Q. Revision accepted.