1989 PLP 1431 (SCMR)

‑‑S.77‑‑Agreement to sell property‑‑Executant of document of sale disowned its execution when proceedings were taken to get the document registered and Sub Registrar refused to register the same‑‑Said vendor however executed another sale‑deed in respect of same land in favour of petitioner which was registered‑ Respondents filed suit under S.77 of the Act which was dismissed as incompetent by trial Court but was remanded in appeal for trial‑‑Order impugned‑‑Held, refusal of Registrar to direct registration of the sale‑deed which was ‑of much earlier date than the one executed in favour of petitioner gave respondent a statutory right to approach a Civil Court and that right could not be denied to him‑‑Petition dismissed. Muhammad Abdus Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch: Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th March, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑Siri Chand, respondent No‑3, agreed by a registered deed, dated 7‑4‑1964 to sell agricultural land measuring 64 kanals and 4 marlas situate in village Gulzarpur to Hafiz Abdur Rashid, respondent No.l. Bv two subsequent registered deeds, he extended the time for the completion of the sale. Ultimately, on 12‑7‑1967, he was said to have executed a sale deed However, when proceedings were taken to get the document registered, he disowned its execution. Therefore, the sub‑registrar refused to register it. Hafiz Abdur Rashid filed an application before the Registrar but it was dismissed.

2. On 6‑4‑1968, respondent No.3 executed another sale‑ deed in respect of the same land in favour of the petitioner. This was duly registered despite the objection of Hafiz Abdur Rashid. On 8‑7‑1969, Hafiz Abdur Rashid filed a civil suit under section 77, Registration Act. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of competency. Hafiz Abdur Rashid filed an appeal which was accepted and the case was remanded to the trial Court for decision on merits. The petitioner filed an, appeal in the High Court but it was dismissed. He now ‑seeks leave io appeal from this Court.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not persuaded that the decision of the Additional District Judge suffers from any infirmity. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the only remedy available to Hafiz Abdur Rashid was to file a suit for specific performance. It is A not correct. The refusal of the Registrar to direct registration of the sale‑deed which was of much earlier date than the one executed in favour of the petitioner gave Hafiz Abdur Rashid a statutory right to approach a Civil Court. We do not see how he can be denied that right. The petition is dismissed. M.B.A./K‑104/S Petition dismissed.