P L D 2007 Lahore 689

Before Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Syed Asghar Haider, JJ

GHULAM YASIN---Appellant

Versus

DISTRICT OFFICER (R), JHANG and 2 others---Respondents

Intra-Court Appeal No.175 of 2097 in Writ Petition No.5122 of 2007, heard on 26th
September, 2007.

(a) Registration Act. (XVI of 1908)---

----Ss. 51, 52(c), 58, 59, 60, 61 & 68(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---
Constitutional petition---Registered general power-of-attorney---Correction of description
(boundaries) of land given in power-of-attorney, application for---Sub-Registrar finding
boundaries not correctly given in power-of-attorney recorded thereon a note restraining
attorney from alienating property till same was got corrected---Validity--Registrar/Sub-
Registrar under Registration Act, 1908 did not have any power to take impugned action
or pass impugned order---Registering Officer would be bound to register a document, if
execution thereof was admitted by its executants---Registering Officer while registering
or refusing to register document would not conduct an inquiry into title, possession or
correctness of contents thereof---Registering Officer could rectify any error while
copying documents in the Books to be kept under S.51 of Registration Act, 1908, but
could not amend document itself and that too after its registration---High Court set aside
impugned order/endorsement on such Power of Attorney while declaring same to be
illegal, void and without lawful authority---Principles.

(b) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)---

----Ss. 58, 59 & 60---Registration of document---Registering Officer, powers of---

Scope---While registering or refusing to register a document, Registering Officer would
not conduct an inquiry into title, possession or even correctness of contents of such
document---Principles.

Upon the presentation of a document for registration, upon the appearance of the person
or persons executing the document and on his satisfaction that they are persons they
represent themselves to be and if they admit the execution of the document, the
Registering Officer is bound to register a document in accordance with sections 58 to 61
of the Registration Act, 1908. On the other hand, if a person denies the execution or
appears to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic or the execution is denied by the legal
representatives of the deceased executant, the Registering Officer shall refuse to register
the document. The conditions for exercise of jurisdiction by the Registering Officer while
registering a document or refusing to register a document are clearly mentioned in the
statute. This does not at all involve an inquiry into title, possession or even correctness of
the contents of a document sought to be registered.

Mian Sarfraz-ul-Hassan for Appellant.

Shahbaz Ahmad Dhillon, A. A.-G. for Respondents.

Sh. Umar Draz for Respondent No.3.

Date of hearing: 26th September, 2007.

JUDGMENT

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This I.-C.A. proceeds against judgment dated 25-5-
2007 of a learned Single Judge, in Chamber, of this Court, whereby W.P. No.5122 of
2007 filed by the appellant was dismissed.

Page No. 1 of 1
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that t h e impugned judgment fails to take
notice of the contents of the writ petition whereby, in fact, the appellant had questioned
the authority of the official respondents to amend or rectify a registered document and
making it wholly ineffective. According to the learned counsel, no such power vests in
the official respondents under the Registration Act, 1908. The learned A.A.-G. argues that
such a power is available to a Registrar under section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.
According to the learned Law Officer the impugned order is for rectification of an error
regarding a book. The learned counsel for the private respondent .has also argued on the
same lines.

3. We have gone through the file of writ petition. The general power of attorney is Annex-
B to the writ petition. It was registered by Sub-Registrar, Shorkot, on 31-8-2002. With
reference to the contents of the writ petition and the copies of the documents available on
record, we confronted the learned counsel for the private respondent and he admitted that
they did file a declaratory suit qua the contents of the said documents and that the suit
was sought to be withdrawn with permission to file afresh suit on a date fixed for
evidence. The permission was not granted and the suit was dismissed after closing the
evidence on 28-2-2007. The first appeal was dismissed by a learned A.D.J., Shorkot, on
3-3-2007. It appears that yet another suit was filed thereafter wherein again an application
was filed to withdraw with permission to file afresh. This application was refused on 26-
4-2007. A revision petition was tiled and on 21-5-2007 the learned counsel for the private
respondent stated before the learned A.D.J. that he will now withdraw the suit
unconditionally and civil revision was also .disposed of as withdrawn. Thereafter, he filed
an application before the respondent DO(R) for the same relief. In fact, a prayer was
made that the description (boundaries) of the property mentioned in the said registered
document be corrected. The said DO(R) proceeded to obtain a report and thereafter
proceeded to make a note on 3-4-2007 that the boundaries of the; property are not
correctly entered in the general power of attorney and he is restrained from alienating the
land till such time that he gets the boundaries corrected.

4. It is but apparent that the said DO(R) proceeded not only to enter the said note on the
said power of attorney but also, to make it completely ineffective by restraining the
principal as well as the attorney from alienating the land.

5. We have examined the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and we have not been
able to find any provision in the said entire Act authorizing a DO(R)/Registrar/Sub-
Registrar to take such an action, or to pass such an o r d e r. S o far as the said contention
of the learned A.A.G. is concerned, the said power to rectify any error regarding a-book
has to be exercised in a manner consistent with the said Registration Act, 1908. At the
pain of repetition, we state that no such power can be read in any provisions of the said
Act. Upon the presentation of a document for registration, upon the appearance of the
person or persons executing the document and on his satisfaction that they are persons
they represent themselves to be and if they admit the execution of the document a
Registering Officer is bound to register a document in accordance with sections 58 to 61
of the Registration Act, 1908. On the other hand, if a person denies the execution or
appears to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic or the execution is denied by the legal
representatives of the deceased executant, the Registering Officer shall refuse to register
the document. It will, thus, be seen that the conditions for exercise of jurisdiction by the
Registering Officer while registering a document or refusing to register the document are
clearly mentioned in the statute. This does not at all involve an inquiry into title,
possession or even correctness of the contents of a document sought to be registered. The
contention of the learned Law Officer that by making the said note on the document, the
official respondents rectified the error in book is misconceived. Reference is to the books
to be kept by the Registering Officers in accordance with section 51 of the said Act.
Under section 52(c) the document presented for a registration is to be copied in the said
book. Similarly, under section 61 the endorsements and certificates made in accordance
with sections 59 and 60 of the said Act are also to be copies into margin of book No.1.
The rectification obviously means any error while copying the document and not
amending the document itself and that too after its registration.

6. Apart from the said clear legal position, prima facie, the official respondents have acted
dishonestly in collusion with the private respondent who were at the same time unable to

Page No. 2 of 1
obtain any relief from the civil court except a permission to withdraw and dismissal as
such unconditionally while failing to lead any evidence in support of their plea.

7. The I.-C.A. is accordingly allowed. The writ petition is accepted and the impugned
order/endorsement dated 3-4-2007 on the said registered document is declared to be
illegal, void and without lawful authority and is set aside. The document shall take effect
accordingly. No orders as to costs.

S.A.K./G-74/L Appeal accepted.

Page No. 3 of 1
Page No. 4 of 1