ABDUL RASHID Versus MUHAMMAD FAZLUR REHMAN

This is a Second Appeal filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Karachi, dated the 14th March, 1966 dismissing the appeal of the appellant. It arises out of the following facts.

2. The respondent filed an application on the 6th of March, 1964 under section 13 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance for ejectment of the appellant from Quarter No. 505, P.

1. B. Colony. The appellant contested this application and alleged that the respondent was not the legal owner of the property. He also contended that respondent did not require the quarter for his genuine need. The learned Rent Con troller by his order, dated the 26th of May, 1965 allowed the application and directed the ejectment of the appellant. Against this order of the Rent Controller, the appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was heard by the Additional District Judge, Karachi, and dismissed as stated above. It is against this judgment of the Additional District Judge, that the present Second Appeal has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent having purchased this quarter from Muhammad Masood Ansari for an amount more than Rs. 100 would not be the legal owner of it unless he had the sale‑deed registered under the Registration Act. According to him, the view of the learned Additional District Judge, that section 32 of the Co operative Societies Act exempted such a registration was an erroneous one. Section 32 (1) reads as under :‑

"Nothing in section 17, subsection (1) clauses (b) and (c) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), shall apply to‑(1) any instru ment relating to shares in a society, notwithstanding that the assets of the society consist in whole or in part of immovable property."

It is very clear from the provision reproduced above that an instrument relating to shares in a society, notwithstanding that the assets of the society consist in whole or in part of immovable property, do not require registra tion. The documents Exhs. P. 1 to P. 4, brought on the record of the original file clearly show that the society is the owner both of the plot as well as of the quarter. It is the society which transfers the plot as well as the quarter after transferring the shares. The transfer of the quarter by Muhammad Masood Ansari to the respondent would have obviously conferred no title on the respondent unless the society had transferred the title to him. The title in the property in view of the documents produced on record has been transferred not by Muhammad Masood Ansart but by the society. Under these circumstances section 32 of the Co‑operative Societies Act clearly exempts registration of such a transfer. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent is not the landlord of the property, therefore, appear to me to be without force.

The question whether the need of the respondent for personal use of the quarter was genuine or not was argued by the learned counsel to be dependent upon the result of his arguments relating to the question of title of the property. Since I have held that the respondent was the landlord of the, property, the decision on the question whether the respondent needed the quarter for his personal use, would be immaterial for the decision of this appeal. Even otherwise the question whether he needed the quarter for his personal use, is a question of fact and has been concurrently decided in favour of the respondent by the two Courts below. Under these circum stances, I see no force in this appeal and hence dismiss it with costs.

M. Y. M Appeal dismissed.