' AJMAL MIAN, J---This petition is directed against the order dated 26-5-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No,730/D of 1992 filed by the petitioner against the concurrent judgments/decrees dated 13-54991 and 1-2-1992 of the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, and of the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, respectively, in suit and appeal filed by the petitioner for seeking a declaration that the sale in respect of the suit land in favour of his two brothers i,e, the respondents was fraudulent, dismissing the same by affirming the above concurrent judgments/decrees.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner and his two brothers i,e, the respondents inherited the agricultural land left behind by their father, Fateh Muhammad i,e, 1/3rd and 2/3rd respectively. It appears that on the basis of a registered sale-deed dated 28-2-1952, the petitioner's share was shown to have been purchased by the respondents in the revenue record. The petitioner filed the above suit for the above relief, which was resisted by the respondents. The learned trial Court, after framing issues, recording evidence and hearing the parties by its aforesaid judgment/decree, dismissed the suit. The petitioner's civil appeal as well as above civil revision also failed. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition, Mr. Muhammad Hussain Awan, learned ASC appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the registered sale-deed in favor of the respondents was void inasmuch as it was registered at Lahore though the suit land was situated in Sheikhupura and, therefore, under section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as the Act, it should have been registered with the Registration Office at Sheikhupura.
4. The above contention is not tenable. The learned Additional District Judge in his above judgment has effectively dealt with the above point. He has rightly pointed out that there is a distinction between a Joint Registrar and a Sub-Registrar. A Joint Registrar may exercise the powers of the Registrar as under subsection (2) of section 7 of the Act, the Provincial Government has been authorised to delegate the powers of the Registrar. Additionally, under section 30(2) of the Act, a Registrar has been empowered to receive any document without regard to the situation in any part of Pakistan of the property A to which the document relates if he is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for doing so notwithstanding the provision contained in section 28 of the Act. We have noticed that there was no issue on the question, whether the Joint Registrar, who registered the sale-deed in question, was delegated the above powers or whether the Registrar had granted any permission under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Act. It was for the petitioner to have insisted for framing of an issue. The suit was filed in 1973, whereas the sale-deed was registered in 1952. The petitioner's own evidence indicates that he had the knowledge of registration of the sale- deed since 1952, even it is to be accepted that the petitioner had not appeared before the Joint Registrar, the suit, therefore, had been rightly held to he barred by time. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Mst. Izzat v. Allah Ditta (PLD 1981 SC 165 at page 167). The above case is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the petitioner failed to prove that any fraud was committed by the respondents. The petitioner has no merits Leave is refused.