P L D 1955 Baghdad﷓ul﷓Jadid 31 (PLP)

ABDUL HAMID MALIK, J.-One Jewan brought a suit against the defendant respondent, Hafiz Faiz Muhammad, for a declaration to the effect that he was the lawful owner and in possession of land in suit and that the registered sale-deed executed by him in favour of the latter qua the suit property was fictitious, without consideration and was the result of fraud perpetrated on him by the defendant. The defendant, in the written statement, pleaded that the plaintiff had received Rs. 2,500 as consideration for the sale of the suit property and that the sale-deed was executed by the plaintiff voluntarily and that no fraud was perpetrated on him. He further alleged that he was in possession of the land and that the sale-deed was duly registered on 2nd May, 1951. Upon the pleadings of the parties the learned Senior Sub Judge Bahawalpur framed the following issues :- (1) Whether the plaintiff: is in possession of the land in suit. (2) Whether the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable. (3) Whether the sale-deed pertaining to the land in suit was executed due to fraud perpetrated on the plaintiff by the defendant. (4) Whether the sale-deed in question is without con sideration and illegal. (5) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled. (6) Whether the defendant is entitled to costs under section 35 (a) C. P. C. The trial Judge decided the first two issues in favour of the plaintiff. He, however, decided issues No. 3 and 4 in favour of the defendant and eventually dismissed the suit. Against this decision the plaintiff has come in appeal before this Court. (After examination of evidence, the judgment recorded the finding that the plaintiff had not received the consideration of sale and that he was still in possession of the property, The judgment proceeded) :- "Where neither possession of the property alleged to have been sold nor delivery of the sale-deed to the purchaser is proved and there is also no proof of the payment of the consideration money entered in the sale-deed, then mere registration of the sale-deed does not operate to pass title to the vendee or to pass any interest in the property purported to have been sold to him ". Again reference may be made to 46 I C 382, where it was held that " the non-payment of consideration however may often be very strong evidence that the deed was intended to operate ". In the present case we find that the learned Senior Sub -Judge found that the possession of the suit property was with the plaintiff. We have, as indicated above, come to the conclusion that the consideration amount was not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Finding ourself in respectful agree ment with the ruling cited above, we hold that the mere registration of the sale-deed (Exhibit D-B) does not operate to pass title to the vendee or to vest any interest .in the land alleged to -have been sold. Needless to refer to the statement of Tahsildar Minchinabad, Mr. Abdul Majid Jamil, who stated before us that he did not sanction the mutation on the ground that the vendor, Jewan, had represented to him that he had not sold the land in suit to the defendant, Hafiz Faiz Muhammad, that he had not received the consideration amount and that he had not parted with the possession. The witness further stated before us that Jewan had told him that registration had taken place due to fraud perpetrated on him by Hafiz Faiz Muhammad. For the reasons given, we set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and declare that the registered deed of the sale, Exhibit P-B is not binding on the plaintiff. The net result is that the appeal succeedes and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in its entirety. The appeal is therefore accepted with costs throughout. FAIZ MUHAMMAD, C. J.

I agree. A.H. Appeal accepted.