1994 PLP 281 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑‑Ss. 54 & 118‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Alleged transaction of exchange relating to immovable property over the value of Rs.100‑‑‑Such transaction could only be effected through registered deed‑‑ Provisions of Ss. 54 and 118, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 being applicable to the case, mutation on basis of alleged oral exchange was illegal‑‑‑Provisions of Ss. 54 and 118, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were made applicable to Province of Punjab vide Punjab Government's Notification dated 17‑12‑1974 whereby transaction of exchange relating to immovable property over the value of Rs.100 could only be effected through registered document‑‑‑By subsequent Notification dated 22‑11‑1978, although earlier Notification dated 17‑12‑1974 was superseded and provisions of Ss. 54 and 118, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were restricted in their application to only those areas falling within Municipalities and notified areas, yet subsequent Notification dated 22‑11‑1978 could not act retrospectively so as to validate a transfer which was invalid on the date it was entered into on account of earlier Notification dated 17‑12‑1974‑‑‑On the date when mutation was effected in favour of defendants on basis of alleged oral exchange transaction, earlier Notification dated 17‑12‑1974 was in the field and as such transaction in question, was void in absence of a registered document evidencing transfer of immovable property by way of exchange‑‑‑Void transaction could not be validated by subsequent withdrawal of earlier Notification by the Government‑‑‑No exception, thus, could be taken to the judgment of High Court upholding the said view‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and. Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th October, 1993. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The above petition arises out of a civil suit filed by respondents seeking declaration of title in respect of land measuring 43 Kanals and 6 Marlas which was mutated on 28‑11‑1975 in favour of petitioners on the basis of an alleged transaction of exchange of land between the parties. The suit filed by the respondents was decreed by the trial Court holding that the alleged transaction of exchange related to an immovable property over the value of Rs.100 which could only be effected through a registered deed and as the provisions of sections 54 and 118 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were applicable to the case, the mutation on basis of the alleged oral exchange was illegal. On appeal the Ist appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. On a further revision filed by respondents before the High Court against the judgment and decree of Ist appellate Court, the learned Judge in Chambers set aside judgment and decree of the Ist Appellate Court and restored the judgment and decree of trial Court. The petitioners who were respondents in the Civil Revision Application before the High Court have applied for leave to appeal against the order of High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners though conceded that in view of the application of sections 54 and 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, which were made applicable to province of Punjab vide Notification dated 17‑12‑1974, the alleged transaction of exchange could only be effected through a registered document, contended that the disputed transaction of exchange was saved, as by virtue of a subsequent Notification dated 22‑11‑1978 the earlier Notification dated 17‑12‑1974 was superseded and provisions of sections 54 and 118 were restricted in their application to only those areas falling within municipalities and those notified and declared under section 241 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has not impressed us at all. The Notification dated 22‑11‑1978 could not act retrospectively so as to validate a transfer which was invalid on the date it was entered into on account of Notification dated 17‑12‑1974. On the date when the mutation was effected in favour of petitioners on the basis of the alleged oral exchange transaction, the Notification dated 17‑12‑1974 held the field and as such the transaction was void in the absence of a registered document evidencing the transfer of immovable property by way of exchange. This void transaction could not be validated by subsequent withdrawal of the Notification dated 17‑12‑1974 by the Government on 22‑11‑1978. No exception therefore, could be taken to the judgment of the learned Judge in chambers in restoring the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the circumstances of the case. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused. A.A./M‑1823/S Leave refused.