Law:

Section:

(a) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)-- --- S. 73-Compulsory registration of sale deed-Whether Registrar can review his order dismissing application for compulsory registration of document--[Quaere].-[Review]. Mata Dayal v. Queen Empress (1897) I L- R 24 Cal. 755 and Abdul Hakim v. Latifunnessa Khatun (1903) I L R 30 Cal. 532 distinguished. (b) Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981)- Art. 9-Writ-Petitioner's suit assailing sale deed on ground of fraud pending adjudication before lower Court-Constitutional petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court for same relief and on same ground-Held, cannot be entertained.-[Fraud-Writ]. ORDER The dispute involved in this case relates to a shop. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, Muhammad Sharif and another, hereinafter referred to as the respondents, claimed to have purchased the shop from the petitioner, Muhammad Hussain, by means of a sale-deed. The petitioner, however, did not have the sale-deed registered whereupon the respondents made an application, under section 73 of the Registration Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as the said Act, for compulsory registration of the sale-deed. By his order, dated the 29th August, 1981, the Registrar ordered compulsory registration of the sale-deed and that order has been challenged by the petitioner by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. 2. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that one Salimullah also claimed to have purchased the shop in dispute from the petitioner. According to him, Salimullah had filed a suit seeking declaration of his ownership of the said shop but his suit had been dismissed. I was also informed by the learned counsel that the petitioner too had brought a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed in question (which was registered in pursuance of the impugned order) and his suit is pending decision with a civil Court. Another suit relating to the shop in dispute is said to have been instituted by Khalid and others. Their plea is that the shop was jointly owned by them and the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner alone could not sell the same. The suit of Khalid and others has also not been decided as yet. 3.…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492