KALU alias ALI BAKHSH vs Hafiz ABDUL RASHID and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding a dispute over the sale of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether a party whose sale deed registration was refused by the Registrar is limited exclusively to filing a suit for specific performance, or if they may pursue a remedy under the Registration Act 1908. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the refusal of the Registrar to register a sale deed confers a statutory right upon the aggrieved party to approach a Civil Court for relief. The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that a suit for specific performance was the sole available remedy. The ratio established is that the statutory mechanism provided under the Registration Act 1908 for challenging a Registrar's refusal to register a document remains a valid and independent legal recourse, regardless of the existence of other potential civil remedies. Consequently, the appellate court's decision to remand the case for a decision on merits was upheld as legally sound and free from infirmity.
- Is a suit for specific performance the only remedy available when a Registrar refuses to register a sale deed?
- Does the refusal of a Registrar to register a document grant a statutory right to approach a Civil Court under the Registration Act 1908?
- Section 77, Registration Act 1908
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--Siri Chand, respondent No,3, agreed by a registered deed, dated 7-4-1964 to sell agricultural land measuring 64 kanals and 4 marlas situate in village Gulzarpur to Hafiz Abdur Rashid, respondent No,1. By two subsequent registered deeds, he extended the time for the completion of the sale. Ultimately, on 12-7-1967, he was said to have executed a sale deed.
However, when proceedings were taken to get the document registered, he disowned its execution.
Therefore, the sub-registrar refused to register it. Hafiz Abdur Rashid filed an application before the Registrar but it was dismissed.
2. On 6-4-1968, respondent No,3 executed another sale- deed in respect of the same land in favour of the petitioner. This was duly registered despite the objection of Hafiz Abdur Rashid. On 8-7-1969, Hafiz Abdur Rashid filed a civil suit under section 77, Registration Act. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of competency. Hafiz Abdur Rashid filed an appeal which was accepted and the case was remanded to the trial Court for decision on merits. The petitioner filed an appeal in the High Court but it was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not persuaded that the decision of the Additional District Judge suffers from any infirmity. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the only remedy available to Hafiz Abdur Rashid was to file a suit for specific performance. It is not correct. The refusal of the Registrar to direct registration of the sale-deed which was of much earlier date than the one executed in favour of the petitioner gave Hafiz Abdur Rashid a statutory right to approach a Civil Court. We do not see how he can be denied that right. The petition is dismissed.