1. ' This is a second appeal by Muhammad Hakeem, the plaintiff-appellant to this Court against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below by which the suit for possession of the suit land by way of redemption of mortgage was dismissed in both the Courts on its original side as well as appellate one vide judgments of the Courts below respectively given on 9-3-1971 and 19-10-1975.
2. ' It was alleged by Muhammad Hakeem, the plaintiff that the land in suit was purchased by him for a sum of Rs, 800 from one Fazal Dad who was the occupancy tenant of the same by a registered deed on 16-6-2002 B. K. While this land was mortgaged with Piran Ditta to whom mortgage money was to be paid by the vendee and further the land from Piran Ditta somehow passed on to defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 who were also the land-owners of this very land.
3. Ghulam Mustafa son of Piran Ditta was impleaded as defendant No,
1. Mst. Sardar Begum sister of Fazal. Dad was also a party to suit and two more persons, namely, Iqbal and Bashir sons of Raja were also made a party about whom it was contended that their father used to have a claim of mortgage of the land in suit.
4. ' The plaintiff did not disclose the capacity in which the land-owner were in possession of the land in suit though the latter themselves pleaded that the occupancy rights were purchased by them from Fazal Dad through `Wazir-Wazarat/Collector of the District in the year 2002 B.K. For a sum of Rs, 800 which was deposited by them in the office of the said Officer. This amount also includes the mortgage money payable to Piran Ditta which was duly paid to him through the Revenue Officer concerned and so the possession of the land in suit was delivered to them and accordingly the land was deemed to have been purchased by the landlords under the provisions of section 60 of the Tenancy Act of 1977 B.K.
5. ' It was on an, application moved by Fazal Dad, the occupancy tenant for alienation of the land in suit that the Collector, as he was empowered by law to transfer the land to the landlords, did it accordingly in favour of the landlords. It was during the very pendency of those proceedings before the Collector that Fazal Dad sold the land to Muhammad Hakeem, the plaintiff without obtaining a certificate from the Collector to do so and it was afterwards that the purchase of the land by the landlords under section 60 of the Tenancy Act was duly made and so defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were deemed to have purchased the land in suit under a special law.
6. ' Thus the contention of the landlords is that they as vendees of the land in suit, made payment of mortgage money to the mortgagees through a Revenue Officer as required by law and thus the question of redemption of mortgage by the plaintiff did not arise at all.
7. ' The trial Court struck the following issues :-
(1) Whether the land in dispute was purchased by Muhammad Hakeem, the plaintiff through a registered sale-deed dated 16-6-2002 B. K, 0. P. P.
(2) Whether the land in dispute was mortgaged with Piran Ditta for a sum of Rs, 260 and the defendants are in possession of the land as Mortgagees ? 0. P. P.
(3) Whether the land in suit was purchased by defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 from Fazal Dad for a sum of Rs, 800 and as such they are in possession of the same as owners ? 0. P. P.
(4) Relief.
8. ' The trial Court found that the plaintiff, no doubt, obtained a sale-deed of the land in suit from Fazal Dad, the occupancy tenant but it was without an authority from the Collector as required by section 60 of the Tenancy Act before whom the proceeding under section 60 were still underway and, on their inclusion in pursuance of the order of the Collector, the land-owners were deemed to have purchased the land under section 60 of the Tenancy Act. By the purchase so effected under section 60 of the Tenancy Act, Muhammad Hakeem was adversely affected who then lodged a suit for recovery of the sale money against Fazal Dad, the occupancy tenant in the Court of Munsif Mirpur from where he was granted a decree for the amount claimed. And consequently it was held by the learned trial Court that the defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 for being rightful purchasers of the land in suit were in possession of the same as such and matter in issue was decided in their favour dismissing the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
9. ' On appeal to the District Judge the plaintiff-appellant could not even come out successful as the lower Appellate Court agreed with the findings of the trial Court.
10. ' The sale of the land in suit made by Fazal Dad, occupancy tenant in favour of the plaintiff and purchase of the same by the landlords under a special law stood proved.
11. ' There is a documentary evidence on record to substantiate the transfer of the land in favour of the parties, viz. Muhammad Hakeem, a stranger on the one hand and the landlords on the other hand.
12. The certified copy P. C. Of a decision of a civil Court in relation to recovery of the sale money by the plaintiff is also on record to which there is no rebuttal made by the plaintiff. It shows that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was inoperative and ineffectual against the rights of the purchasers of the land under section 60 of the Tenancy Act and it was admitted therein as such by the plaintiff himself. The land-owners paid the mortgaged money to Piran Ditta as purchasers of the land and therefore, they cannot be treated as mortgagees of the land as the learned counsel for the appellant has urged to treat them as such. Then the learned counsel for the appellant has con-,4 tended that as under section 138 of the Transfer of Property Act of 19771 B. K. No transfer of immovable property would be valid unless and until it is in writing and registered under the provisions of section 61(2) of the Registration Act of 1977 B,K. And as transfer of the land in suit in favour of the landlords lacks registration; it cannot be given precedence over the sale-deed registered in favour of Muhammad Hakeem, the plaintiff. This contention of the learned counsel is also without force as there is an exception in the very section 138 of the Transfer of Property of Act itself to the effect that a case governed by any special law contrary to this provision of the law in relation to the registration of an instrument, is exempted from the operation of this provision of law.
13. Here section 60 of the Tenancy Act provides a complete mode of transfer of occupancy rights in favour of the landlords and it was all done in accordance with law in the instant case. The landlords, i,e,, landowners namely, defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 (Anayat Khan, son of Ali Ahmed, Boota and Gulzar sons of Gulzar) are the purchasers of the land in suit for which they had paid the consideration to the occupancy tenant through a competent Revenue Officer and since then they have been in possession of the land in suit as owners and so they cannot be treated as mortgagees of the land in suit.
14. It was during the pendency of the proceedings under section 60 of the Tenancy Act that the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff which became ineffectual as admitted by the plaintiff himself while obtaining a decree for recovery of the amount paid by him to Fazal Dad for the purchase of the land in suit.
15. ' Thus under these circumstances, the stand of the landlords is legally, founded on a strong footing as compared to the case of the plaintiff-appellant; therefore, his appeal stands dismissed with costs.