Law: Registration Act, 1908

Section: 35, 47 , 60

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 85(5) , 90

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100

(a)    Registration Act (XVI of 1908)---

----Ss. 35, 47 & 60---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 85(5) & 90---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100---Registered sale deed---Presumption of correctness---Binding nature of registered instruments---Scope---Legal oversight looked---Effect---Contention of the appellant was that both the courts below over the validity of registered sale deed---Validity---Registered sale deed carries a presumption of correctness unless stronger evidence is brought forward to challenge its authenticity---Registered sale deed in favour of the appellant stood valid unless rebutted by strong evidence, which the respondents had failed to produce---Respondents did not bring on record any document, order, or cancellation notice that could cast aspersion on the genuineness of the registered sale deed---Registered instruments, including the mutation entry and Rule Cards in favour of the appellant were not only binding upon the parties to the instruments but were equally applicable to third parties, including the respondents---Respondents had not contested the validity of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the appellant before any competent court of law---Respondents did not offer compelling evidence to dispute the registered sale deed, which was assumed to be valid under Ss. 35, 47 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 and such legal oversight by both the trial and appellate courts resulted in an erroneous dismissal of the case, as they did not properly consider this fundamental principle---Trial Court failed to follow a remand order from appellate court and the appellate court ignored this procedural mistake, rendering its judgment unsustainable---Maintainability is a foundational inquiry that must precede any substantive adjudication, thus, the case warranted remand to the Trial Court for a fresh determination specifically on Issue No. 3, which pertained to the suit's maintainability ahead of other issues and for providing detail findings on each issue separately, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to judicial precedent---Second appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court, in circumstances.

Rasool Bukhsh and another v. Muhammad Ramzan 2007 SCMR 85; Abdul Aziz v. Abdul Hameed 2022 SCMR 842 and Malik Jamal and others v. Malik Zahoor-ulHaq and others 2011 SCMR 1023 ref.