' MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner has impugned orders dated 13-12- 2011 and 25-4-2012 passed by the respondent No,2 and respondent No,1 respectively.
2. The petitioner and three other persons executed a gift deed in favour of Ghulam Rasool, donee, and duly presented the gift deed for registration before the respondent No,2. The respondent No,2 refused to register the gift deed through its order dated 13-12-2011 on the ground that the document has been presented by the local commission for registration on the basis of Fard Jamabandi issued by the Patwari for record instead of for sale of the house. He further ordered that the Fard Jamabandi did not contain a note in red ink about the nature of the land and the status of the property i,e, whether it is commercial or residential as required by letter No, NTO/3725 dated 12- 11-2011. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the respondent No,1 which appeal was dismissed and the order of the Sub-Registrar was upheld.
3. The grievance of the petitioner, as argued by the learned counsel is that the respondent No,2 was obligated to register the gift deed and in terms of Rule 135 of the Registration Rules, 1929 (The Rules) he could not demand the Fard Bay or the note in red ink. The learned counsel argued that these documents relate to the title and ownership of the property and cannot be looked into by the respondent No,2. Learned counsel further argued that if the document is presented in a proper manner by a competent person at the right time before the respondent No,2, he is then required to register the document without any inquiry into its possible effects. Learned counsel further argued that the revenue record is maintained for fiscal purposes and not for the purposes of validating ownership and title, therefore the respondent No,2 could not call for the Fard Bay or the note in red ink on the Fard Jamabandi. He further argued that there is no provision in the law for issuance of Fard Bay, hence the respondent No,2 could not have asked for the said document. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the case titled 'Roshan Din v. Tehsildar and others' (2010 YLR 5) wherein it was held that the Sub-Registrars and Patwaris have developed a strange practice of demand of certified copy of the Fard Bay and this demand of the Sub-Registrar before registering a document is not in accordance with law. As per the findings of this judgment, the learned counsel argued that there is no law, instruction or order on the basis of which the Registering Officer can call for the Fard Bay or for any note on the Fard Jamabandi, so the same is against the law. Learned counsel has also relied upon the cases titled 'Fida Hussain and others v.
Abdul Aziz' (2005 CLC 180), 'Muhammad Hameed v. District Officer (Revenue), Lahore and another'
(PLD 2007 Lahore 490) and 'Aurangzeb through L.Rs, and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another'
(2007 SCMR 236). However, with respect to the specific question raised in the instant writ petition, learned counsel has placed emphasis on 2010 YLR 5 (supra).
4. The respondents have filed their report and para wise comments. In terms of the comments filed, the learned Law Officer argued that a note in red ink, on the Fard Jamabandi is necessary as it reveals the value of the property that is whether it is commercial or residential. In terms of. Letter dated 12-11-2011 it is necessary that this note in red ink be enclosed on the Fard Jamabandi. So far as the requirement by the respondent No,2 for the Fard Bay, the learned Law Officer argued that the same was necessary to ascertain the execution of the gift deed as the executants were not before the respondent No,2. He argued that the document was presented before the respondent No,2 through a local commission and that the respondent No,2 in order to ensure that the executants executed the gift deed, required that the local commission provide the Fard Bay. He argued that the Fard Bay is issued by the Patwari on the request of the owners of the property to indicate the transfer of property in the form of sale or gift, as the case may be. He further argued that no illegality has been made out by the respondents where the Registering Officer required the document to be produced before him. Since the local commission refused to produce the document, hence the order was issued by the Sub-Registrar declining to register the document.
5. I have heard the learned 'counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.
6: The question that needs to be answered is whether the Registering Officer by virtue of Rule 135 of the Rules is required to execute the document presented before him without calling for any further documentation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rule 135 of the Rules which is reproduced below:-- `Registering officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned with the validity of documents brought to them for registration, and that it would be wrong for them to refuse to register on any such grounds as the following e.g. That the executant was dealing with property not belonging to him, or that the instrument infringed the rights of third persons not parties to the transaction, or that the transaction was fraudulent or opposed to public policy. These and similar matters are for decision, if necessary, by competent courts of law and registering officers, as such, have nothing to do with them. If the document is presented in. a proper manner by a competent person at the proper office within the time allowed by law and if the registering officer is satisfied that the alleged executant is the person he represents himself to be and if such person admits execution, the registering officer is bound to register the document without regard to its possible effects'.
'The answer to this question lies in sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 (Act of 1908). - Section 34 provides for an inquiry by the Registering Officer that no document shall be registered under the Act unless the persons executing the documents or its representative, assign or agent appear before the. Registering Officer within the time allowed for presentation of document. The Registering Officer shall inquire whether or not such document was executed by a person by whom it purports to have been executed and satisfy himself as to the identity of the person appearing before him alleging that they have executed the document. He will also satisfy himself with respect to the right of the representative to appear on behalf of any person. Section 35 of the Act of 1908 provides for the procedure on admission and denial of execution respectively. Section 34 of the Act of 1908 requires the Registering Officer to satisfy himself on the identity of the persons who have executed the document presented before him. Section 35 of the Act of 1908 requires the Registering Officer to satisfy himself that such persons have executed the document.
Therefore the Registering Officer can examine any person in his office to determine whether the document has been executed by the persons it purports to have been executed by. Under section 35 of the Act of 1908, any person appearing through a representative, assign or agent then such representative, assign or agent can admit the execution. However, section 35(2) of the Act of 1908 provides that the Registering Officer in order to satisfy himself that the persons appearing before him are the persons they represent themselves to be, may examine such person in his office. The question before this Court falls within the scope of the inquiry that the Registering Officer may make under section 35 of the Act of 1908 in order to satisfy himself that the document placed before him for registration purports to be executed by the persons stating to have executed the document. In the instant case the gift deed was presented by the local commission before the Registering Officer. The Registering Officer first had to satisfy himself with respect to the identity of the persons presenting the document. Then in order to satisfy himself that the document was executed by the executants, he required that the local commission A produce the latest Fard Bay.
This document can be issued by the Patwari at the behest of the owners of the property for the purposes of transfer of the property by virtue of the gift deed. The Registering Officer objected to the Fard Jamabandi presented before it as it did not satisfy him that the gift deed was executed by its executants as the Fard Jamabandi was issued for record purposes and not for transfer purposes. The learned counsel have argued that the requirement of Fard Bay is in violation of Rule 135 of the Rules as the Registering Officer cannot question the validity of the document produced before it. To my mind requiring the local commission to produce Fard Bay to ensure that the executants of the gift deed have executed the gift deed does not in any way amount to questioning the validity of the document. Rules 135 of the Rules does not prevent the respondent No,2 from fulfilling his statutory duty under, sections 34 and 35 of the Act of 1908. The said Sections require the Registering Officer to ensure that the document presented before it has been executed by the persons appearing before it and that the persons who claim to have executed the document admit the execution of the document. The requirement of satisfying himself means that the Registering Officer has to apply his mind to the case before it and determine whether or not the execution of the document is admitted. In the instant case the gift deed was presented by the local commission. Although the local commission could admit to the execution of the document, the Registering' Officer still had to satisfy him under section 35(3)(a) of the Act of 1908 that the gift deed was executed by its executants. The executants were not present before the Registering Officer, hence he called for latest Fard Bay which would have satisfied him that the executants have executed the gift deed. Learned counsel have stressed mainly on 2010 YLR 5 (supra) with respect to the demand for a Fard Bay. However, this case is distinguishable on a fundamental fact.
In that case the executant of the document appeared before the Registering Officer himself and therefore the court found that it was unnecessary to ask for a Fard Bay. In this case the executants of the document were not before the Registering Officer, hence he required the additional document to satisfy himself that the executants of the gift deed admit to the execution of the said document. To my mind, the requirement of satisfying the Registering Officer may be more stringent in cases where the document is presented by the local commission, to protect the interest of the public. Therefore, no illegality has been made out by the respondent No,2 while asking for the Fard Bay for the purposes of registering the gift deed as presented by the local commission.
7. The duty of the Registering Officer under sections 34 and 35 of the. Act of 1908 should not be entangled with the restriction, under Rule 135 of the Rules. The Registering Officer should not concern himself with the validity of the document sought to be registered that is he should not be concerned whether the registration is opposed to public policy or whether the document sought to be registered will infringe upon the rights of a third person. The. Registering Officer, however, is required to satisfy himself that the document presented before it for registration is admitted by its executants, in that they have executed the document. This inquiry entails more than simply checking that the document has been signed. The Registering Officer must satisfy himself that the executants own the document presented before him. The Registering Officer under section 35 of the Act of 1908 must satisfy himself on the execution of the document presented before it and should not rely merely on a signature.
8. The next objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Registering Officer could not ask for a specific note in red ink with, respect to the status of the property as the same is evident from the document presented before it The respondents have relied upon a letter dated 12-11-2011 which is reproduced below:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The letter provides that the Registering Officer to ensure that a note in red ink has been affixed on the Fard presented to him which states the status of the property i,e, whether it is commercial or residential. On the basis of this document, the Registering. Officer is able to ascertain -the valuation of the document to ensure that the applicable stamp duty has been paid. Again to my mind requiring the red note to be affixed on the Fard does not amount to questioning the validity of title but is only related to the question of valuation of the property for the transfer by a document that has to be registered. Hence it does not fall in the ambit of Rule 135 of the Rules.
9. Therefore in view of the aforesaid the petition is dismissed.