' Being dissatisfied from the judgment and decree dated 5-12-1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, the petitioners filed the present revision petition.
2. The appellate Court vide its impugned judgment and decree dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment and decree dated 10-7-1996 awarded by the trial Court.
3. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration to tie effect that sale-deed dated 5-9-1973 executed by one Muhammad Akbar in respect of ' Shop No,T.114 Kasera Bazar Rawalpindi was illegal, void, inoperative and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiffs. As consequential relief the plaintiffs also sought a decree for permanent injunction.
4. The plaintiff/petitioners are daughters and son of late Malik Muhammad Akbar who was the owner of Shop No,T-114 situated in Kasera Bazar Rawalpindi. Their father executed a sale-deed on 5-9-1973 whereby the shop in question was sold in favour of Fazal Muhammad the predecessorin- in terest of the present respondents.
5. The case set up by the plaintiff was that vide document dated 15-6-1970, which is described an undertaking, of late father of the plaintiff transferred the suit property in favour of Mst. Ashraf Jan, his wife and the mother of the present plaintiff. Therefore, late Muhammad Akbar was divested of title and ownership in relation to the shop and he could not alienate through sale in favour of Fazal Muhammad on 5-9-1973.
6. The undertaking was produced by the plaintiff as Exh.P.1. The only question canvassed and urged by the petitioners relate to the interpretation of this document.
7. Both the Courts below held that the undertaking relied by the plaintiffs did not convey any right or title in favour of their mother Mst. Ashraf Jan. The petitioners were aggrieved of the treatment meted out to. Them by the two Courts below in interpreting the document. Therefore, the only question raised in the present revision petition relate to the interpretation and construction of Exh.P.1. The contents of the document Exh.P.1 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference.
' Undertaking ' This indenture of Undertaking entered into and executed by Malik Muhammad Akbar, son of Bahadur Ali, caste Kakeyzai aged about 70 years, resident of House No,P/1644, Eidgah Raod, Rawalpindi City, hereinafter referred to as the executant of the one part, which term shall include his legal heirs, nominees, assigns administrators and others and Mst. Asraf Jan, wife of Malik Muhammad Akbar (daughter, of Babu Din), housewife, also resident of P11644 Eidgah Road Rawalpindi City, hereinafter referred as No,2, which terms shall include as far as possible her legal heirs, nominees executors and administrators; ' Whereas the executant entered into marital contract with party 'No,2 several years ago, and ever since the latter has been living with .The executant as his legally wedded wife and has been continuously discharging her obligation diligently, obediently and faithfully.
' And whereas the executant now intends to settle upon her certain property, comprising of house and shop in lieu of her dower, which remains as debt on the person and property of the executant and which has not been settled upon her hence to forth.
' The executant now, therefore, do hereby settle the following property upon Mst. Ashraf Jan, the second party:-
(1) House No, P/1644 , Eidgah Road, Rawalpindi.
(2) Shop No, T/14, Kasera Bazar, (Sarafa Bazar), Rawalpindi.
' The executant also undertakes to cause a registration of sale-deed iv respect of afore-cited house and shop ir favour of Mst. Ashraf Jan, party No,2 within a period of two years from the date of execution of the present undertaking. However in case of executant's failure to do so a sum of Rs,20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only), shall be paid by the executant to Mst.Ashraf Jan at the expiry of two years.
' Provided that if the Registration of sale-deed as mentioned above is not effected and the amount of Rs,20,000 is also not tendered for payment; then Mst. Ashraf Jan, party No,2 shall be considered to have a permanent lien and hold upon the house and shop referred to above and the same property will be considered as to her own. The executant has voluntarily handed over the possession of the House No,P/1644, and Shop No,T/114, to Mst. Ashraf Jan his wife and daughter of Babu Feroz Din with all the affixtures rights and easements appurtenant thereto.
' Made, signed and delivered at Rawalpindi this 15th day of June, 1970, in the presence of witnesses D13;SPR: Executant 15-6-1970 8.It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the documents did not require registration as it conveyed the property in favour of Mst. Ashraf Jan in lieu of dower. Secondly the proper construction of the document clearly shows that the suit Property bearing No,T/114 stood transferred in favour of the mother of the petitioners. The learned counsel arguing on behalf of the petitioners given various description to the document. He defined it as a lien in execution. He also described the document containing an to.Actionable claim. He also denominated it as an absolute promise conveying complete title.
9. On the other hand it was maintained by the counsel for the respondents that the document is not a conveyance deed. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the executant died in 1983. He remained alive for 13 years after execution of the undertaking. The petitioners or their mother never claimed any right in respect of the property. Its alienation through sale in favour of the predecessor of the respondents was in the knowledge of the petitioners but during lifetime of their father they never challenged it.
10. I have examined the arguments advanced from both the sides and perused the record. In the process of construction of a document it is by now a well-settled principle that the document is to be read as a whole to differentiate between general statement and the particular statement contained therein and attempt be made to save document rather than destroy or nullify it.
Reference is made to a case of Allah Baksh and others v. Muhammad Ishaque and others (PLD 1984 SC 47). A.R Khan v. P.N. Boga through legal heir (PLD 1987 SC 107).
11. In the light of this principle the analysis of the documents show that it was described as undertaking and executant displayed his intention to settle -upon his wife certain property in lieu of her dower which included Shop No,T/114 Kasera Bazar, Rawalpindi.The executant also undertook to execute sale-deed in respect of shop within a period of two years from the date of execution of the undertaking and in case he failed to execute the sale-deed he was required to pay sum of Rs,20,000 to his wife within a period of two years. Further it was provided in the undertaking that if the registration of the sale-deed is not affected and the amount of ,Rs,20,000 is also not -tendered for payment then the wife shall be considered to have a permanent lieu and hold the property as of her own. Admittedly subsequent to the undertaking, the executant did not execute any sale- deed. It is also alleged by the petitioners that Rs,20,000 were not paid to their mother in the alternative. It was argued that in such a situation the undertaking has conveyed a complete title of the property in favour of Mst. Ashraf Jan, mother of the petitioners.
12. The different expression used by the learned counsel to describe the document were merely high sounding expressions. The document could not be defined as a lien in execution. For the reason that a lien in B execution is an encumbrance that attaches to the property of judgment debtor by operation of law. Similarly the expressions of absolute promise is of no help to the petitioners because an absolute promise is one which is not inchoate but the completed promise is a competed contract which is capable of implementation and execution. It was for this reason that learned counsel lastly argued that the documents contained an actionable claim Again the argument of the learned counsel is self defeating because an actionable claim is a one which is constituent fact which lead to the perfection of the right. On the other hand a completed conveyance is the one which permanently and absolutely transfers a title and right in the immovable property. In the present case the document was simply an undertaking containing a promise to take certain steps in future for the perfection of right of Mst. Ashraf Jan in respect of property mentioned in the undertaking. Later neither the sale-deed was registered for the payment of Rs,20,000 was alleged to have been made. Resultantly the third incident as given in the document would follow which was that the property was held in lien by Mst. Ashraf Jan. From the construction of the document it cannot be concluded that it has conveyed the ownership or the title in favour of Mst.Ashraf Jan. The executant remained alive for 13 years after the execution of the document . He has also alienated the property through a registered sale-deed in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents during the lifetime of the executant nor any proceedings were taken to seek the perfection of right in the immovable property nor any claim of title or ownership was extended by the petitioners during the life time of their farther. There is no evidence to show that Rs,20,000 were not paid by the executant to his wife. All these attending circumstances provide clue to the interpretation of the document. Keeping in view all the facts it is safely concluded that it was merely and undertaking which contained the promise to transfer the property in favour of Mst.Ashraf Jan. This promise was not acted upon by the executant, therefore, the document per se did not convey any right and title in favour of Mst. Ashraf Jan and late Muhammad Akbar (executant) was not divested of owner ship/title in the property. Even if the document is taken as a non-testamentary document convey mg the right and title then it becomes compulsorily register able under section 17(1) of the Registration Act and effect of non- registration as described in section 49 of the Act is that it does not operate to create or convey any right in or in respect of immovable property.
' For the reason given hereinbefore I find it difficult to agree with the petitioners and hold that the document Exh. P.1 (undertaking) did not convey any right in favour of Mst. Ashraf Jan and the executant, Malik Muhammad Akbar was not divested to title and ownership of the property and the sale-deed dated 5-9-1973 was executed by him in favour of Fazal Muhammad with competence and within his right. Consequently I hold that there in no merit in the revision petition and two Courts below did, not commit any material irregularity in construing the documents. According this revision petition is dismissed .