Registered Sale Deed Prevails Over Cancelled Mutation – Scope of Section 41 TPA.
رجسٹرڈ بیع نامہ کی برتری اور ریونیو افسر کے اختیارات کی حد
مقدمہ کا پس منظر
بنیادی قانونی سوالات
ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ اور قانونی اصول
دوبارہ فروخت کا اختیار
حتمی نتیجہ
عملی اہمیت
Must read judgement.
2026 C L C 73
[Lahore (Multan Bench)]
Before Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, J
JAHANGIR KHAN-Petitioner
Versus
ABDUL GHAFFAR (deceased) through L.Rs. and others-Respondents
Civil Revision No. 485-D of 1993, decided on 6th December, 2023,
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---
any S. 41-Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), 5.45-Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54-Suit for declaration and injunction -Mutation, cancellation of---Purchase through registered sale deed-Ostensible owner, purchase from-Scope-Petitioner plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit land on the basis of registered sale deed which was incorporated in revenue record-Revenue authorities. cancelled mutation in the name of petitioner/plaintiff and resultantly respondent defendant purchased suit land from previous owner Suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff was decreed in his favour by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit-Validity-Person claiming protection under S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was bound to establish that the person from whom suit properry was transferred to him was an ostensible owner, while transfer so made was with the consent of real owner, either express or implied---Such transfer must have been made for some consideration and the person who was transferee or purchaser must have acted in good faith with all reasonable care and steps before entering into such transaction for transfer-If an one of such ingredients was missing, then the transferor was not eligible to seek protection of equitable doctrine envisaged under S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sanctity was attached to a registered document and it was considered a notice to public at large-In order to dislodge such presumption mere inquiry of revenue record was not sufficient Entries of revenue record were not foundation of title as such entries were made for fiscal purposes-Neither respondent/defendant specifically sought protection under S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 nor had established such fact through any evidence-Sale deed executed in favour of petitioner /plaintiff remained intact and no one had challenged validity and legality of sale deed in question--Although mutation in question. had been cancelled, yet petitioner/plaintiff was owner of suit property on the strength of sale deed and previous owner had no right to sell suit property in favour of respondent/ defendant--Revenue officer was not competent to cancel mutation entered on the strength of registered sale deed on the ground that provision of Martial Law Regulation had been violated-Order cancelling mutation. in question was void ah-initio having no effect upon the rights of petitioner/plaintiff---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court-Revision was allowed accordingly.
Faizullah v. Muhammad Sarwar and another 2013 CLC 1054; Mst. Aisha bibi v. Nazir Ahmad and others 1994 SCMR 1935; Syed Fakhar Imam Shah and others v. Abdul Haq (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2006 SCMR 550 and Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad
Shafique and 9 others 2007 SCMR 1773 rel
Tariq Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhary for Petitioner.
Rao Qasim Raza Khan and Masood Arif Butt for Respondents.