Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 333 = 1980 SLD 3331 = 1980 CLC 616
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 742 of 1979, decided on 21st February 1979.
Presented By: Muhammad Amin Burr, J
Mian Maqsool Ahmad with Inayat Hussain Chaudhry for Petitioners.,

MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND ANOTHER-Petitioners

VERSUS

NASIM AKHTAR AND 12 OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Registration Act (XVI of 1908)

Section: 72, 74, 75, 76, 77

(a) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)  Ss. 72, 74, 75, 76 & 77 InquiryProvisions of Act give limited jurisdiction to Registrar for inquiry as contemplated in S. 74(a) Registrar not bound to conduct regular trial and decide valuable rights of partiesProvisions of S. 75(4) discretionary and may be exercised in appropriate casesRefusal of Registrar to determine disputed questions of fact as to genuineness of document and signatures of vendors on saledeed, where one of executants died, and leaving parties to have complicated fact adjudicated by civil Court, held, justified. (b) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)  S. 77 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199Registrar refusing in register document under S. 72 or 76Person claiming under such document or his representative, assign or agent may file suit in civil Court under S. 77Adequate remedy under S. 77 available, petition under Art. 199, held, not maintainable.                                                                                                               JUDGMENT The petitioners in this case are aggrieved by an order dated 1311979 passed by Mr. Saleem Akhtar Rana, Deputy Commissioner/Registrar, Gujranwala, respondent No. 13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners presented a sale deed dated 3121977 for registration before SubRegistrar, Gujranwala respondent No. 12 which purported to have been executed by respondents No. 1 and 2 arid Barkat Ali, the predecessorininterest of respondents Nos. 3 to 11. The SubRegistrar summoned the respondents and the respondent No. 2 denied the execution of this document so the registration was refused. An application under section 13 of the Registration Act was then moved before the respondent No. 13 whereupon the learned counsel for that any respondent asserted that the document was forged and claimed that the respondents had neither signed nor made any…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register