MUHAMMD KHAN and anothers vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD and another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute concerning the validity of a land exchange mutation executed on 28-11-1975. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, declaring the oral exchange of immovable property void for lack of a registered deed, as required by sections 54 and 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which were applicable to the Punjab province at the time via a 1974 notification. Although the first appellate court reversed this decision, the High Court restored the trial court's judgment. The petitioners argued before the Supreme Court that a subsequent 1978 notification, which superseded the 1974 notification, retroactively validated the oral exchange. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the 1978 notification could not operate retrospectively to validate a transaction that was void at the time of its execution. The Court affirmed that the transaction remained void because it failed to comply with the statutory requirements in force at the material time. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Can a subsequent notification restricting the application of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, retroactively validate a transaction that was void at the time of its execution?
- Is an oral exchange of immovable property valued over Rs. 100 valid in the absence of a registered deed when sections 54 and 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are applicable?
- Does a government notification superseding an earlier notification have retrospective effect to validate previously void transactions?
- Section 54, Transfer of Property Act 1882
- Section 118, Transfer of Property Act 1882
- Section 241, Punjab Municipal Act 1911
1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The above petition arises out of a civil suit filed by respondents seeking declaration of title in respect of land measuring 43 Kanals and 6 Marlas which was mutated on 28-11-1975 in favour of petitioners on the basis of an alleged transaction of exchange of land between the parties.
2. ' The suit filed by the respondents was decreed by the trial Court holding that the alleged transaction of exchange related to an immovable property over the value of Rs,100 which could only be effected through a registered deed and as the provisions of sections 54 and 118 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were applicable to the case, the mutation on basis of the alleged oral exchange was illegal. On appeal the Ist appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. On a further revision filed by respondents before the High Court against the judgment and decree of Ist appellate Court, the learned Judge in Chambers set aside judgment and decree of the Ist Appellate Court and restored the judgment and decree of trial Court. The petitioners who were respondents in the Civil Revision Application before the High Court have applied for leave to appeal against the order of High Court.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners though conceded that in view of the application of sections 54 and 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, which were made applicable to province of Punjab vide Notification dated 17-12-1974, the alleged transaction of exchange could only be effected through a registered document, contended that the disputed transaction of exchange was saved, as by virtue of a subsequent Notification dated 22-11-1978 the earlier Notification dated 17-12-1974 was superseded and provisions of sections 54 and 118 were restricted in their application to only those areas falling within municipalities and those notified and declared under section 241 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.
4. ' The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has not impressed us at all. The Notification dated 22-11-1978 could not . Act retrospectively so as to validate a transfer which was invalid on the date it was entered into on account of Notification dated 17-12-1974. On the date when the mutation was effected in favour of petitioners on the basis of the alleged oral exchange transaction, the Notification dated 17-12-1974 held the field and as such the transaction was void in the absence of a registered document evidencing the transfer of immovable property by way of exchange. This void transaction could not be validated by subsequent withdrawal of the Notification dated 17-12-1974 by the Government on 22-11-1978. No exception therefore, could be taken to the judgment of the learned Judge in chambers in restoring the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the circumstances of the case. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- Dr. Sikandar Ali Mohi Ud Din vs Station House Officer and others 2021 SCMR 1486
- Dr. Sikandar Ali Mohi-Ud-Din vs Station House Officer and others PLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 333