2001 C I (PLP)
Ch. SHAFAAT MAHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE,
| Citation | 2001 C I (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | Ch. SHAFAAT MAHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 C I (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 C I (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 C I (PLP) (Ch. SHAFAAT MAHMOOD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shamim Abbas Bokhari for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. l and 2.
- Ch. Zafar Iqbal for Respondent No. 3.
- Date of hearing: 15th January, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 30‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 1.0‑‑‑Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.47‑‑‑Right of pre‑emption, enforcement of ‑‑‑Limitation‑‑ Registered document under the provisions of S.47 of Registration Act, 1908, operates from the time from which the same would have been commenced to operate, if no registration of a document is required or made and not from the date of its registration‑‑‑Limitation for enforcement of pre‑emption right under the provisions of Art. 10 of Limitation Act, 1908, is to be computed from the date of registration of sale‑deed and not from the execution. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 30‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Right of pre‑emption, enforcement of‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Date from which limitation would be construed would be the date on which the document was actually registered and not from the date of its execution. Muhammad Meher Ali v. Muhammad Karam Ali Sarkar PLD 1965 Dacca 305 and Gobardhan Bar v. Gunadhar Bar AIR 1941 Cal. 78 ref.
Judgment & Decree
1 2 3 "To enforce a right of one year When the price pre‑emption whether the becomes payable. right is founded on law, When the purchaser or general usage, or on takes, under the sale special contract. sought to be impeached, physical possession of the whole of the . property sold or, where the subject of the sale does not . admit of. physical possession when the instrument of sale is registered. While section 47 of the Registration Act is in the following words:‑‑ "
47. Time from which registered document operates.‑‑‑ A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof h ‑(: been required or made, and not from the time of its registration. "
6. No doubt section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 on its plain reading ordains that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have been commenced to operate, if no registration thereof is required or made, and not from the date of its registration, but Article 10 of the Limitation Act,‑ 1908 clearly provides that the limitation is to be computed from the date of registration of sale‑deed and not from its execution. The plain meaning of the statute cannot be defeated and the period of limitation abridges by reference to section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908. This question came up before the Dacca High Court in Muhammad Meher Ali v. Muhammad Karam Ali Sarkar PLD 1965 Dacca 305, wherein it was held that section 47 of. the Registration Act applies between the transferor and transferee. It has no relation with the rights of the person who is not a party to the said document. He comes into the picture after the registration i.e. when the deed of transfer was duly completed by the date of registration comes into existence. The same view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in Gobardhan Bar v. Gunadhar Bar AIR 1941 Cal.
78. No law or precedent has been cited which could persuade me to take a different view. That being so, it is held that the date from which limitation will be construed shall be the date on which the document is actually registered and not from) the date of its execution.
7. The learned counsel has argued that the respondent No.3 was lessee and not a tenant. However, no such plea appears to have been raised in any of the Court below nor in the written statement filed by the said respondent. In view of what has been said above, this petition is dismissed with l no order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑143/L Petition dismissed