P L D 1954 Peshawar 88 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SHAFI, J.‑Khasra Nos. 2668 and 3108, the old Khasra numbers of which were 1771 and 1885 respectively measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas, formed the joint property of the two brothers Gul Zaman and Khalilur Rehman These two brothers are alleged to have executed two separate deeds, the former on list September, 1950, and the latter on 13th Septem ber 1950, saying that they had sold their respective shares in the two Khasra numbers mentioned above in favour of Sher Muhammad Khan son of Jahandad Khan, but on account of so rime mistake the sale was not given effect to in the two muta tions No. 243 attested on 18th November 1949, and No. 361 attested on 9th March 1950. These two mutations were with respect to the sale of certain property, which these two brothers are alleged to have made in favour of the said Sher Muhammad. The documents mentioned above were present ed for registration in February 1951, but the Sub‑Registrar refused to register them, on the ground that the executants denied the execution. An application for the compulsory registration was then made to the Registrar of Hazara District which was rejected by Mr. Fazal Rahman Khan on 8th Sep tember 1951. Sher Muhammad Khan then instituted two separate suits under section 77 of the Registration Act, one against Khalilur Rehman and the other against Gul Zaman, for the grant of decrees, directing the documents to be registered in the Sub -Registrar's Office when presented within thirty days of the passing of such decrees. The two defendants met the claim by two different written statements, which are almost identical. They stated that the plaintiff represented to them that some land on account of some mistake had not been included in the previous sales, and, therefore, fresh documents should be executed by them with regard to the omitted land. They agreed to do so, and executed the two documents, Gul Zaman with respect to 4 marlas and Khalilur Rahman with respect to 16 maralas but the plaintiff subsequently tampered with the two docu ments executed by them and included in them the land far in excess of that which he had said was omitted to be mentioned in those sales. The principal issues framed in both the cases were the, same, and they were to the following effect :‑ (1) Whether the defendant executed the receipt under fraud if so, with what effect'? (2) Whether the plaintiff tampered with the receipt after execution thereof if so, what is its effect ? The learned trial Judge found issue No 1 in both the suits in favour of the plaintiffs, and issue No. 2 against him. He held that the plaintiff had tampered with the documents, and, therefore, he was not entitled to the relief claimed. He dismissed both the suits with costs. On appeal the learned District Judge Hazara, came to the conclusion that some portions of both the documents had in fact been tampered with, but as no material tampering had taken plate therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to get the decrees in both the suits. He accepted the appeals, and granted plaintiff the decrees prayed for. The defendants have separately come up in revision to this Court. Since the points involved in both the cases are the same, the two petitions will be disposed of by one single judg ment The two questions, which require determination in both the cases are :- (1) whether there has been any alteration in. the two documents in question, and (2) what is the effect of those alterations on the plain tiff's suit. The following alterations are obvious in the document executed by Gul Zaman :‑ (a) In line No. 3 the word nisaf has been completely out off. (b) In line No. 6 the figure 11 in 18th November 1949 is tampered with. (c) The following line is a postscript :‑ Mukarrar Aankkay Arazi Mazkoora Bala Maaliati Yak Sad Rupia Hai." (d) The figure "9" in 1st September 1950 is altered. This document is alleged to have been scribed by Yaqoob Khan, who has wrongly been mentioned as petition‑writer in the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court, because as, is obvious from the statement of Yaqoob Khan himself he is only a shopkeeper and not a petition‑writer. Yaqoob Khan, when he appeared into the witness‑box, denied the alterations mentioned above, but a mere glance at the document would show that he is being in that respect. Rasool Khan and Muhammad Ajab, however, who are the original witnesses of this deed, clearly admit these alterations. In the second document executed by Khalilur Rahman, the following alterations are patent on the face of it :‑ (a) In line No. 3 the word "Baraay" has been cut off and substituted by the word "Bashamool". (b) In the same line the figure "49" in "15th September 1949" has been altered from some other figure, which was originally written. (c) The same alteration in figure "49" appears in line No. 4. (d) In line No. 6, the mutation 361 is written in different ink. (e) In the same line the figure "9" is written over some other figure in 9th March 1950. (f ) In line No. 9 the name "Khalilur Rahman" is written over some other word. (g) In line No. 11, the date "13th September 1950" is written in a completely different ink. Maulvi Said Alam, the scribe of this document admits these alterations, but, says that he did not make them. Dosa, one of the marginal witnesses of this deed too admits the altera tions. It, thus, follows that the first question with respect to both the documents must be answered in the affirmative. As regards the second question, the legal position is that when a document is presented for registration before a Regis tering Officer; and if it is found that in such document there appears any interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration, then unless the person executing the document attests with his signatures or initials such interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration, the Registering Officer has a discretion under sec tion 20 of the Registration Act to refuse to accept such docu ment for registration. In suits under section 77 of the Reg istration Act, if a certain document bears the most apparent traces of having been tampered with, the Court should nor mally upheld the discretion exercised ‑by the Registering Officer. In the two documents in question the alterations are there, and it is also clear that these alterations have not been attested with their signatures or initials by the persons execut ing them, so the .Registering Officer had the jurisdiction to refuse to register the document. The argument, however which has been given by the learned District judge in his judgment, and repeated by the learned counsel for the plaintiff before me, is that the alter ations in both the documents were immaterial, and did not cause any doubt regarding their genuineness, and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be non‑suited on account of those altera tions. The ordinary reading of section 20 of the Registration Act would show that any interlineation, blank, erasure or alter ation in the document, whether it is material to the document or not, or whether it causes any doubt with regard to its genuineness or not, authorizes the Registering Officer to exercise his discretion, and refuse to accept the same for re gistration. 'In fact the Registration Act, which divests a certain person of his rights in property must be very strictly construed, and the provisions of the Registration Act, though they may seem to be technical, must be strictly complied with in order to prevent forgeries and the procurements of conveyances by fraud or undue influence. Construing section 20 strictly, the Registering Officer had no other option but to reject the documents and refuse to register then. Under the circumstances the plaintiff had no cause of action to bring the suits in question, and they were liable to dismissal. The result is that I accept both the revision petitions, set aside the judgments and decrees of the learned lower appel late Court, and‑restore those of the learned trial Court with costs throughout. Pleader's fee Rs.

20. Orders announced. A. H. Petitions accepted