| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3068 1970 SLD 3068 = 1970 PLD 141 |
Peshawar High Court
Further Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1961, heard on 5th June 1969.
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Iqbal and Sher Bahadur Khan, JJ
Muhammad Swaleh v. United Grain and Fodder Agencies PLD 1964SC97ref. Qazi Mohtadullah for Appellant.
Further Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1961, heard on 5th June 1969.
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Iqbal and Sher Bahadur Khan, JJ
Muhammad Swaleh v. United Grain and Fodder Agencies PLD 1964SC97ref. Qazi Mohtadullah for Appellant.
FIRDUS KHAN-Appellant
VERSUS
Sayid AZAM SHAH AND 14 OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Registration Act (XVI of 1908)
Section: 17, 49
(a) Mortgage - Redemption - Suit to redeem mortgage partially-Held not maintainable. A suit to redeem a mortgage partially is not maintainable. A suit on a mortgage bond has to be for the whole of the amount of the mortgage in order to avoid multiplicity of suits because neither the mortgage money nor the security can be split up without the consent of the parties or permission of the Court. Sunitibala Debt v. Dhara Sundarl Debi A I R 1919 P C 24 and Radha Math v. Nagendra Nath A I R 1931 Cal. 806 ref. (b) Revenue record-Mutation and entries in record-of-rights such documents, held, not deeds of title. The mutation and for the matter of that the subsequent entries in the record of rights do not create any title in favour of any person. These documents are not the deeds of title. The validity or otherwise of a transaction depends not on the mutation or entries in the record-of-rights but on the facts whether there was a valid transaction in existence which was given effect to in the revenue papers. Nirman Singh v. Rudra Partap Narain Singh A I R 1926 P C 100; Ram Sarup Rai v. Charitter Rai A I R 1927 All. 338: Mst. Rasulan Bibi v. Nand Lal A I R 1930 All. 521; Mahadeo Singh v. Jagmohan Sineh A I R 1914 Oudh 235; Mst. Jagrani v. Bishe shar Dube A I R 1916 All. 1 and Baldea Singh v. Udal Singh A I R 1921 All. 248 ref, (c) Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss. 17 & 49-Mortgage deed not registered, though given effect to in mutation proceed ings-Does not create any interest or right in favour of mortgage. A transaction which is the subject-matter of a document which requires registration under section 17 of the Registration Act and had not been so registered even if given effect to in mutation proceedings remains invalid. Where the mortgage deed was not registered, it would not, in view of the provisions of section 49, create any interest or right in favour of the mortgage. The mutation which was based on the unregistered mortgage deed and the subsequent entries in the record-of-rights would equally be invalid. If the foundation is without any legal basis, the superstructure of rights and obligations built upon that must fall to the ground because such a…