' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition under section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 has been filed by the petitioner for the reversal of order dated 2-6- 2007 passed by respondent No,2 to the following effect:-- "In view of the circumstances it can safely be assumed that the sale-deed in question is without consideration and liable to be set aside within the purview of section 7(c) and (f) of Act 1 of 1993. In view of the above discussion I hereby reject the application for NOC of the petitioner, also cancel the sale-deed Exh.A1 as being without consideration. Also direct that property involved in the sale- deed if not taken over in possession be taken over immediately. Copy of the order be communicated to the Property Section and the CFC concerned for compliance."
2. The brief facts as narrated in this petition are that the land measuring 8 Kanals comprising Khasra No,692 Khatuni No,203 Khewat No,19, situated in the revenue estate of village Bhullar Tehsil Cantt.: District, Lahore had been purchased by the petitioner through sale-deed bearing Document No,1138 dated 26-6-1991 for a consideration of Rs,2.25 lacs which was executed by Muhammad Basharat Manager of Passban Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd. It is claimed by the petitioner that the whole amount was paid to said Basharat and after the execution of the sale-deed the possession of the property was also delivered to the petitioner and the petitioner applied for the sanction of mutation on 25-2-2004 and the Revenue Officer asked for NOC from the PCBL and consequently the impugned order has been passed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed only on the ground that there was contradiction in the statements of the witnesses produced by the petitioner regarding the payment of amount; that the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar carries presumption of correctness under section 60(2) of Registration Act 1908 and relies upon Habib Bank Ltd. v. Mubarak Alam Syed 1987 CLC 1914; to contend that if tee payment is rendered in the account, sale-deed cannot be held invalid. Also relies upon 1971 SCM R 414. Further contends that the document could not be cancelled by the PCBL and it is only civil court which can cancel the documents; that the PCBL only can cancel the agreement and not the sale-deed. Relies upon 1989 M LD 4314. Next contended that the respondents have not brought on record any evidence and even Basharat was not produced by the respondents who could have denied the execution of sale-deed or receipt of amount; that three other sale-deeds executed by Basharat on behalf of PCFC in favour of other persons were declared correct and his authority was never challenged and that the impugned order having been passed on surmises and conjectures is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition on the ground that Basharat was not competent to execute the sale-deed on behalf of PCFC; that the resolution was mandatory before executing the sale-deed on behalf of PCFC, but there is no such resolution; that SA Jaffri and Altaf were the authorized persons who could execute the sale deed on behalf of PCFC and they were not empowered to authorize Basharat to execute the sale-deed on behalf of PCFC; that Sub- Committee was constituted which consisted of three Zonal Cheifs as members for dealing the matters on behalf of PCFC; that sale-deed claims to have been executed on 29-6-1991 when the scam had already been surfaced and Loan Commission was constituted, but they had not made any claim before the Loan Commission; that inquiry under section 23 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 was undergoing when the property is shown to have been purchased by the petitioner; that the sale-deed was executed by non-authorized person and it is not a valid sale-deed; that as regard payment of consideration there are contradiction in the statements of witnesses produced by the petitioner; that sale-deed had been presented through Local Commission and is no presumption of truth is attached to the sale-deeds as the amount was not credited in the account of PCFC and there is no supporting evidence that the amount had actually been paid as it cannot be believed that such a huge amount could be paid without any receipt or proof; said amount has not been credited with the PCFC; that first time petitioner has approached the respondents for issuance of NOC in the year 2007 i,e, after 16 years; and that under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act states that a contract for the sale of property itself does not create any interest or charge on such property; that the impugned order has been passed on valid reasons which may be maintained.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. It is an admitted fact that Passban Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd. Was a registered Corporation and its functions were being done in a manner prescribed by the Corporation for the purchase and sale of properties. It was mandatory that a resolution was passed by the Managing Committee and then an official or any other person was authorized by the Management to purchase or sell the property on behalf of the Corporation. The pivotal question in the present case is whether Muhammad Basharat Manager was competent to execute sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, no resolution has been placed on the record which had authorized said Basharat to execute the sale- deed on behalf of the Corporation and to put his signatures as a representative of the Corporation of the said sale-deed and to receive the money.
6. It is claimed by the petitioner that through letter dated 13-4-1991 Muhammad Basharat was authorized by the delegatee to execute the sale deeds and to deposit the sale proceed with the Corporation. No resolution has been placed on the record to show that the Managing Committee of the Corporation had approved the sale of the said land to the petitioner and neither the petitioner has produced any resolution. The only letter has been signed by S.A. Jaffri and S.M. Idress Officers, but the petitioner is not in possession of any document which would show that both these officers were empowered to delegate the powers to Muhammad Basharat Qadri to execute the sale-deed. Even otherwise learned counsel for the respondent had contended that a Committee was formed by the Corporation consisting of three Zonal Chiefs of Rawalpindi, Sialkot and Gujranwala along with S.A. Jafri and Altaf A. Malik officers who were authorized to execute the sale- deed on behalf of the Corporation but the said Committee never approved the sale of the said plot. No document is available on the record to show that any deal had been struck by the petitioner for the sale of the said land measuring 8 Kanals for an amount of Rs,2,25,000.
7. On the basis of the above-said facts serious objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the sale-deed was not executed by a competent person and the onus had shifted in the circumstances upon the petitioner to prove that the deal had been struck with the defunct Corporation for the sale of the said land and Muhammad Basharat was competent to execute the sale-deed in which he has failed. No doubt presumption of truth is attached to a registered sale-deed but when the competency of the executant of the sale-deed is challenged then the onus shifts upon the vendee to prove that the sale-deed had been executed under the law.
8. The petitioner has produced three witnesses to prove that the sale-deed was validly executed.
AW.1 Agha Saleem Ullah was a petition writer who claimed to have written the registered deed Exh.A. As regards the payment of amount he stated that at the time of writing of the sale-deed the amount had been paid to Muhammad Basharat by the petitioner. Ajmal Rafique petitioner appeared as AW.2 who stated that the amount was paid to Basharat in the Library Branch of the defunct PCFC while Malik Safdar Ali AW.3 stated that the amount had been paid in the Bank.
However, it is admitted by him that no receipt was issued in favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances it has been rightly observed by the respondent through the impugned order that the petitioner had failed to discharge the onus by proving that the payment had been made to Passban Cooperative Finance Corporation as the three witnesses made contradictory statement to each other regarding the place of payment of the amount and the time of payment of the amount. The Local Commissioner otherwise has stated in his report that the payment was made before him while AW.1 Agha Saleem Ullah, Petition Writer stated that the payment was made when the sale-deed was written by him while the other two witnesses also took a different stand. Even otherwise it was mandatory under section 17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order to produce both the marginal witnesses to prove the documents but the petitioner has failed to produce the second marginal witness along with the Local Commissioner and badly failed to prove that any deal was struck with Passban Cooperative Finance Corporation and Basharat was authorized to execute the sale-deed and was a competent person. In "PLD 2006 SC 676" the august Supreme Court while dealing with the proof of the registered document observed at page 685 as under:-- "S.60---Certificate of registration is only to show the execution of the document and presumption beyond that could not be drawn therefrom."
"S.60---Certificate of registration---Only presumption, which could be drawn from the certificate of endorsement was that registration proceedings were regular and honestly carried out. If however, in the given circumstances of a case, genuineness of bona fides with regard to the execution of a document were in doubt then the inquiry could be held in this behalf and no presumption to the effect that such and such document had actually be executed by a genuine person in all circumstances, could be drawn".
9. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of this case as the point involved herein is that the sale deed was shown to have been struck by the incompetent person and the petitioner failed to prove the payment of sale consideration. Moreover, the petitioner applied for NOC after 16 years of the Cooperative Scam.
Even otherwise the deal is shown to have been stuck on 26-6-1991 when the Cooperative Scam had already came on surface, but it is strange that no due care was taken by the petitioner to secure his interest and the claim of the petitioner was also not approved by the Committee constituted in this behalf.
10. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any exception to the impugned order. The PCBL or the Co-operative Judge are the ultimate authorities to take cognizance of the matters relating to the defunct authorities, which were not finalized having become past and still needed consideration.
This petition having no merits is dismissed.