GHULAM YASIN vs DISTRICT OFFICER (R), JHANG and 2 others

' 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.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the 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that they did file a declaratory suit qua the contents of the said documents and that the suit was sought to be withdrawn with permission to file afresh suit on a date fixed for evidence.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 filed 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before the learned A.D.J. That he will now withdraw the suit unconditionally and civil revision was also disposed of as withdrawn.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 order. So 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 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 event 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 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.