MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J. Through instant revision petition, petitioner has assailed vires of judgments and decrees dated 11.09.2014 and 02.09.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Piplan, respectively, whereby petitioner's suit for declaration along with permanent injunction and specific performance of agreement to sell, was concurrently dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner instituted a suit for declaration along with permanent injunction and specific performance of agreement to sell, which was contested by respondents by way of filing written statement. Learned Trial Court, after framing issues, recording evidence of petitioner (as respondents' right to produce evidence was closed vide order dated 15.07.2014) and hearing arguments of both sides, proceeded to dismiss the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11.09.2014. Feeling dissatisfied, petitioner filed appeal before learned Additional District Judge, who vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 02.09.2016 (as respondents were proceeded against ex- parte on 02.09.2015), dismissed the same. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there was an agreement between petitioner and Muhammad Nawaz Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents, who agreed to sell the suit house and after receipt of Rs. 10,000/-, executed 100 unregistered sale deeds (Rs. 99,95 per sale deed) in favour of petitioner. When asked as to whether said Muhammad Nawaz Khan was owner of the property who entered into agreement with the petitioner, he frankly conceded that no such document showing his title has been brought on record.
4. The petitioner claims ownership of suit property measuring 02-Kanal along with constructed house with three rooms, on the basis of unregistered sale deeds purportedly signed by Muhammad Nawaz Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. However, there was no evidence to establish ownership or title of said Muhammad Nawaz Khan qua the suit property, thus, he was not legally competent to further transfer the same in favour of petitioner. It is well- established that a person who does not own a property is not entitled to transfer it to another party. According to Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, only the rightful owner has the authority to transfer property, ensuring that one cannot convey what it does not possess.
Furthermore, the law also stipulates that any transfer made without the owner's consent is void.
This principle is vital for protecting property rights and ensuing legal clarity in transactions.
The seller must be a person competent to transfer i.e. he must have title to the property or authority to transfer it if it is not his own. Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines the person competent to transfer, whereof a transferor must be "entitled to transferable property." A person who has the ownership rights of the property and is recorded as such either in the record of rights or other public document in which the record of the ownership is entered or maintained, can be said to be entitled to the property which is the subject-matter of the transfer. However, a person, though not owner of the property but authorized by its owner legally to transfer the same, is competent to transfer such property. Reliance is placed upon Maulana Abdul Haque Baloch and others v. Government of Balochistan through Secretary Industries and Mineral Development and others (PLD 2013 SC 641), Muhammad Bashir v. Haji Muhammad Siddique and others (1997 MLD 3263), Muhammad Shabbir v. Sub-Registrar, Peshawar District Court, Peshawar and 3 others (PLD 2011 Peshawar 228) and S.M. Shoaib Baghpati v. Umar Gulaga and 3 others (PLD 2015 Sindh 481).
5. Even otherwise, petitioner's claim is based on some unregistered sale deeds, which would not confer any right, title or interest in his favour regarding the immovable property in question. Any document which is required to be registered in terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, if not registered, would not operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent to or in immovable property or confer any power to adopt in view of Section 49 of the Act ibid. Reference is made to Mst. Farida Malik and others v. Dr. Khalida Malik and others (1998 SCMR 816), Muhammad Sadiq v.
Muhammad Ramzan and 8 others (2002 SCMR 1821), Ali Rehman v. Fazal Mehmud and 8 others (2003 SCMR 327) and Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Mst. Baseerat and others (2017 SCMR 367).
6. Petitioner could not prove his case through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence, as rightly observed by the learned Courts below. Learned counsel for petitioner could not point out any illegality, material irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence and jurisdictional error in the concurrent decisions of learned Courts below, warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
7. Resultantly, instant revision petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.