1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This appeal with the leave of the Court has been preferred against the judgment, dated 20-7-1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court. Abbottabad Bench in a Civil Revision bearing No.178 of 1992, through which the return of plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. Was challenged.
2. ' The relevant facts in the background are that respondents by way of filing a civil suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mansehra, sought declaration to the effect that the order, dated 8-3-1992 of cancellation of the registration of agreement bearing No.1388, dated 26-12-1991 passed by the District Registrar was illegal and the same having been passed without lawful authority was of no consequence. The appellants herein being defendants in the suit while submitting the written statement raised preliminary objection relating to the jurisdiction of Civil Court at Mansehra to entertain the suit and adjudicate the matter. The learned Senior Civil Judge in the light of the above objection framed the preliminary issue relating to the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Mansehra and having come to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable at Mansehra for the lack of territorial jurisdiction, returned the plaint to the respondents under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. For presentation before the proper Court. The respondent on failure of appeal preferred by them against this order, filed a civil revision in the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, which was allowed and the order of return of plaint was set aside. The appellants being aggrieved of the judgment of the High Court in civil revision assailed the same before this Court through this appeal.
3. ' The execution and registration of the agreement in question was objected to by the appellants before the Registrar at Mansehra through a written application on the ground that a similar agreement was earlier executed by the respondents which was registered at Mansehra in 1980 relating to the same rights in the forest of Kaladhaka was still in existence and operative, therefore, the execution and registration of another agreement adverse to the rights and interest created under the earlier agreement was not legal and valid. The District Registrar, Mansehra, in the light of objection of the appellants cancelled the registration of agreement in question which was challenged by the respondents before the Civil Court at Mansehra.
4. ' The learned Judge in Chambers in the High Court having discussed the question relating to jurisdiction of Civil Court at Mansehra in the matter held as under:-- ' "In the suit brought by the petitioners a declaration was sought that this order was inoperative against their rights. The learned Courts below instead of having attended to this fact that the prayer in the suit was that the Deputy Commissioner after the registration of the case was not competent to call into question the registration of the subsequent deed attested on 26-12-1991, as there being no provision in law empowering the Registrar to cancel a document which has been executed under section 29 of the Registration Act, adverted to discuss the contents of the documents which was not the subject-matter of the suit. Under section 77 where refusal, is made by the Registrar the same can be questioned in suit within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the document is sought to be registered. The learned Courts erred in discussing the subject-matter of the agreement. The only question for determination before the Courts was to see whether the order of cancellation was within or without jurisdiction which was challenged in the suit having been passed within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. On the analogy of section 77 of the Act, I hold that the Civil Court in the matter has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and both the Courts erred in returning the plaint to the plaintiff-petitioner. This revision petition is therefore, accepted, the Court is directed to entertain the plaint and proceed from the stage where from it terminated the proceedings. Costs to follow the events."
5. ' The appellants have challenged the above order through this appeal before this Court and leave was granted .Vide order, dated 12-7-1995 in the following terms:-- "Leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia, whether or not the Civil Court was justified in returning the plaint to the plaintiff-petitioner.
6. ' The interim relief already granted on 3-8-1994 shall continue till the disposal of the appeal."
7. ' The controversy between the parties in this appeal is confined only to extent of jurisdiction of Civil Court at Mansehra to entertain the suit. This is an admitted fact that agreement pertained to the rights in the forest of Kaladhaka which forms part of Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of District Mansehra. The agreement which was subject-matter of dispute in civil suit was registered at Mansehra and the earlier agreement on the basis of which the registration of subsequent agreement was cancelled was also registered at Mansehra. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that under clause (d) of section 16 of C.P.C. The Civil Court at Mansehra had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and the learned trial Judge rightly returned the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C.
8. ' It was argued that since the document created interest in the property therefore, the suit would only be maintainable at the place where the property is situated and that the agreement involving the interest in the property located out of the District Mansehra was also not registrable under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 at Mansehra.
9. ' Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the objection relating to the exercise of power by the Registrar at Mansehra was without any substance as there was, no bar for the registration of such agreement at Mansehra under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The learned counsel next argued that in the civil suit filed at Mansehra, the declaration was sought to the effect that the cancellation of registration of agreement by the Registrar at Mansehra was illegal, as the law would not authorize him to cancel the document after its registration.
10. Learned counsel submitted that under Registration Act, 1908, Registrar can refuse the registration of a document on any valid ground but once the document is registered he becomes functus officio and cannot competently cancel the registration of such document, therefore, suit for declaration would be maintainable at Mansehra where the document was registered. It is submitted that not the registration of a document but its contents would create rights in the property and the question whether Registrar could or could not cancel the registration of the agreement in question would be adjudicatable by the Civil Court at Mansehra. The learned counsel next argued that since both parties reside. Within the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Court at Mansehra and cause of action also accrued in favour of the respondents at Mansehra, therefore, under section 20 of the C.P.C. The suit would be maintainable at Mansehra.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have examined the matter in detail with their assistance. Under section 16 of C.P.C. a suit for declaration relating to the rights and interest in an immovable proper.Ty is instituted in a Court within local limits of which the property is situated. The suit for the purposes of determining the rights or interest in the property being different to that of the suit in which the relief claimed does not relate to the rights in the immovable property, can be filed at the place at which the cause of action fully or partly arose. The suit relating to the rights in the immovable property would lie before the Court within the local limits of which the property is situated and if the property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, and the relief being sought in the suit relates to the property, the suit would not be maintainable before any other Court except the one within territorial jurisdiction of which property is situated. In the present case, the parties in the suit in question resided in the local limits of District Mansehra and the agreement was also registered at Mansehra therefore, cause of action in favour of respondents-plaintiffs relating to the cancellation of agreement would arise at Mansehra. The essential factor for determination of jurisdiction for the purpose of entertaining the suit would be judged from the contents of the plaint and the dispute subject-matter of suit and not from the consequence flown from the suit. The declaration in the suit filed by the respondents sought was that cancellation of registration of agreement by the Registrar was illegal which would not relate to the rights and interest in the immovable property and would be confined only to the limited extent of the exercise of jurisdiction by the Registrar. The place of breach of law would furnish the forum for a suit and such place is where some act was to be performed and thus the suit to set aside the document on the ground that it was obtained through misrepresentation would be maintainable at the place where the act of misrepresentation, was committed and if such a document is registered, the suit would be maintainable at the place of its registration. The reference may be made to Rajlakshmi Dassi v. Banamali (AIR 1950 Cal. 510). In the case in hand, the document was registered at Mansehra which was subsequently, cancelled and the respondents through the suit for the declaration challenged the cancellation of registration as beyond the power and jurisdiction of Registrar, Mansehra.
12. In the nutshell, if a suit involves dispute relating to the rights in the immovable property, such suit will be maintainable at the place where property is situated and if the relief does not relate to the rights and interest in the property and is confined only to the extent of an ancillary matter, can be filed at the place where the cause of action wholly or partly arose. The learned Judge in Chambers in the High E Court having examined the proposition in detail in the light of relevant statute has held that the suit was maintainable at Mansehra and we are of the view that no exception can be taken to the legal position explained in the impugned judgment in the facts of the present case.
13. Consequently, we for the forgoing reasons, do not find any substance in the present appeal which is dismissed with no order as to costs.