MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. - Petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are real brothers; they jointly owned the suit shop. It is claimed by the petitioner that the said respondents were In exclusive possession thereof and were enjoying the usufruct of the property without paying any profit to him.
Consequently he sought rendition of account.
2. This suit was contested; written statement was find in which plea taken was that by virtue of document Ex.D-1, dated 19.4.1979, the petitioner has sold his share in the said property and thus on account of the above, he has no right or interest therein and is consequently not entitled to any rendition of account. Issues were framed. Parties were put to trial and the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.1995, dismissed the suit of the petitioner holding that he had already received his share in the said shop and is not entitled to any relief. Reliance in this behalf was placed on the document Exh.D.I, mentioned above. Appeal find by the petitioner also failed on 5.5.1997.
3. It is stated that Exh.D.I which is claimed by the respondents to be document conferring title upon them is an unregistered document and the value of the share of the petitioner being more than one hundred rupees, no such right in immovable property can be transferred into the respondents in breach of provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Resultantly, both the Courts below have grossly misread this document and have committed grave and material irregularity in relying upon it. It is further stated that till this date, respondents have not filed any suit tor specific performance, so as to seek legal transfer of the share of the petitioner to them or enforcement of the agreement Exh.D.1.
4. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. Both the Courts below have found that the document Exh.D.I contains reciprocal promises and this document has been acted upon whereby the petition had not only got the cash amount, but also the transfer of the house which came to his share. That being so the question whether Exh.D.I is an unregistered document and confers any title was not considered to be of vital importance. This is true that under the said document the petitioner was also entitled to certain property and the amount and it has not been denied by the counsel for the petitioner that such has not been given to the petitioner.
Consequently, in my view the petitioner is estopped by his own conduct to dispute the consequences of that document, which as even admitted today has been signed by him. From the said document it seems that the same was a result of family arrangements and, thus, it was not required to be compulsorily registered. Even otherwise as held in PLD 1964 SC 454 that a transferee continuing to be in possession under a document requiring compulsory registration but not registered the transferor cannot enforce any right against the transferee with regard to such property.
5. In view of above, as there are concurrent findings of fact, this revision petition has no force, and is hereby dismissed.