| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 190 1957 SLD 190 = 1957 PLD 50 |
Peshawar High Court
Further Civil Appeal No. 112/64 of 1953, decided on 8th November 1956, from the judgment and decree of M. E. Hayat, District Judge, Hazara, dated 11th November 1953, whereby appeal of respondent No. 1 from the judgment and decree of Abdul Wahid Khan, Senior Sub-Judge Hazara, dated 1st May 1953 was accepted.
Before Muhammad Shafi, J
Abdul Qayum Khan, Chaudhry Muhammad Ali and Abdul Latif Khan for Appellant. Muhammad Safdar Khan assisted by Kazi Abdul Rashid for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 20.
Further Civil Appeal No. 112/64 of 1953, decided on 8th November 1956, from the judgment and decree of M. E. Hayat, District Judge, Hazara, dated 11th November 1953, whereby appeal of respondent No. 1 from the judgment and decree of Abdul Wahid Khan, Senior Sub-Judge Hazara, dated 1st May 1953 was accepted.
Before Muhammad Shafi, J
Abdul Qayum Khan, Chaudhry Muhammad Ali and Abdul Latif Khan for Appellant. Muhammad Safdar Khan assisted by Kazi Abdul Rashid for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 20.
Mst. NUR KHANAM-Plaintiff-Appellant
VERSUS
SHEIKH AHMAD and others-Defendants-Respondents.
Law: Registration Act (XVI of 1908)
Section: 49
P L D 1957 (W. P.) Peshawar 50 Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 49--Collateral purpose ---Document may be admissible to prove character of possession but not character of the transaction to which it relates-Unregis tered lease deed, compulsorily registrable, not admissible to prove terms of lease. An unregistered document which requires registration under section 17 of the Registration Act can be admitted in evidence for a collateral purpose, viz., to prove the nature and character of the possession, though the character and nature of the possession cannot be separated from the main transaction evidenced by the document. A distinction has, however, to be drawn between the character and the nature of the possession and character and nature of the transaction. While the document is admissible to prove the character and nature of the former, it is not admissible to prove the character and nature of the latter. The fact whether a lease of immovable property is made for a certain term express or implied, or in perpetuity, or for a certain consideration is not covered by the term "collateral purpose". They are the essential terms of the lease and cannot be proved by a document which is not by the law governing such document admissible in evidence. Mating Po v. R. Muniandy Servai A I R 1917 L Bur. 67; Moti Sagar v. Dhanna Mal and others A I R 1922 Lah. 329; Schindra Mohan Ghose v. Ramjash Agarwalla A I R 1932 Pat. 97; Badal Chandra Sadhukhan v. Debendra Nath Dey A I R 1933 Cal. 612; Ram Lal Sahu and another v. Mst. Bibi Zohra and others A I R 1939 Pat. 296; Surja Mohan Thakur and others v. Ram Prasad Pandy and others A I R 1940 Pat. 37; Mst. Shankari and others v. Milkha Singh A I R 1941 Lah. 407; Fatelal Shah and others v. Dayalal Bishrambhai A I R 1949 Nag. 218 and Muhammad Khan and another v. Muhammad Zaman Khan P L D 1956 Pesh. 12 ref. Vishvanath Baibatrao Deshpande v. Ranganath Dhondo Deshpande and others A I R 1942 Bom. 268 distinguished. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD SHAFI, J.---Mst. Nur Khanam, wife of Khair Muhammad, instituted a suit against Sheikh Ahmad, son of Jamaldin, and…