' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---These petitions under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 have been preferred against the judgment, dated 27-8-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore, through which Civil Revisions Nos.843-D of 1986 and 844-D of 1986 arising out of two cross civil suits were disposed of together, therefore, these two petitions involving common questions of law and facts are proposed to be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. The relevant facts in small compass in the back ground are that Manzoor Ahmed, respondent in these petitions, instituted a suit forcancellation of registered sale-deed, dated 13-7-1982 seeking the declaration that the suit property was not sold by him and sale-deed was a forged document whereas the petitioners claiming themselves to be the owners of property by virtue of sale-deed in question, filed a counter suit for possession. The learned trial Judge consolidated both the suits and vide judgment dated 21-4-1985, decreed the suit of the petitioners and dismissed the cross suit.
Manzoor Ahmed respondent herein challenged the judgment and decrees in these suits by way of filing the separate appeals and a learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide judgment, dated 8-2-1986 dismissed the appeals. The respondent being aggrieved of dismissal of his suit and concurrent decrees passed by the two Courts against him in the cross suit while invoking the revisional jurisdiction ofthe Lahore High Court, Lahore, filed separate civil revisions in the two suits and the learned Single Judge in the High Court seized of the matter having diluted upon the controversial question of facts in detail, reversed the concurrent findings of fact, and allowed the revision petitions. The net result was that the suit of the respondent stood decreed and the suit filed by the present petitioners was dismissed.
3. The petitioners have sought leave to appeal in these two petitions on the following grounds:
(i) That presumption of truth shall be attached to the registered sale-deed to be a genuine document and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the status of sale-deed as a document of title was not challengeable.
(ii) That reversal of concurrent findings on a question of fact through reappraisal of evidence in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was not proper and legal and the learned Judge in the High Court while doing so was misdirected in law and in consequence thereto grave injustice was caused to the petitioners.
' Learned counsel with reference to the provisions of Registration Act, 1908, contended that the conclusion drawn by the learned Judge in the High Court was based on misreading and non- reading of evidence and was contrary to law and that no convincing evidence was brought on record to establish non execution of sale-deed by the executant or to rebut the presumption of correctness attached with a registered sale-deed. The sole question for determination in the present case would be that in case of denial of execution of registered document by its executant, the registration itself was sufficient evidence of proof of execution of document or the holder of document was required to discharge the onus of proving the execution of document through independent evidence. The object of registration of a document is, firstly to give general notice to the. World that the document has been executed, secondly to prevent fraud and forgery and thirdly to secure reliable and complete account of transaction effecting the title to the property.
The registration of a document is proof of its authenticity but it is not always the proof of genuineness of transaction. However, the registered document should not be ordinarily excluded from evidence unless it is shown that non compliance of the provisions of Registration Act has rendered the registration invalid.
The general rule is that the procedural defects in the registration of a document will neither reflect upon its execution nor invalidate the registration but if the defect is of substantial nature, such as presentationof document by an unauthorized person, the registration of a document in absence of its executant or his authorized representative, the denial of the execution of the document by the executant or the language used in the execution of document is not understandable by the parties or description of the property has been incorrectly given in the document, the registration of the document shall be invalid and shall not be an evidence of genuineness of the transaction. In case of the denial of execution of a document by its executant, the registration of such document in absence A of independent proof of its genuineness will make the registration invalid for all practical purposes. Undoubtedly, the registration endorsement prima facie is a proof of execution of document by the executant and compliance of all necessary -formalities by the Registering Officer, therefore, a presumption of correctness is attached with the document. The non compliance of the requirement of sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act if is only of procedural in nature, the error will not affect the registration of document and if the defect is of substantial nature which is not curable, the registration shall become invalid. In the present case, the learned Judge in the High Court having scanned the evidence concluded that the sale price was not, paid in presence of marginal/attesting witnesses of the document or before the Sub-Registrar or the Local Commission and held that the sale was without consideration. The learned Judge also concluded that the sale-deed was not presented for registration by the executant or an authorized person.
4. It is provided in section 38 of the Registration Act, 1908 that in case of inability of executant to appear personally before Registering Officer as mentioned in subsection (1) of said section the Registering Officer should himself go to the house of executant or examine him through a local commission. The executant in the present case was not found suffering from any disability for exemption from personal appearance his examination through a local commission and record would not show that either the executant applied for exemption from personal appearance or he made a request for examination through local commission, who was also not appointed through an express order. The result would be that the execution of the sale-deed by its executant would become doubtful and its registration, due to the above noted substantial defects, would be invalidated.
5. The learned Judge in the High Court having discussed the legal and factual aspects of the matter observed that reasonable doubt was created regarding authenticity of the sale-deed and concluded as under:--- "(1) That presentation for registration of document by a person other than the mentioned in section 32 of the Registration Act, makesthe registration invalid, and admission of the executant does not make the registration valid, if it was not presented in the manner prescribed in section 32.
(2) The Registering Officer shall make inquiry about the execution of document and identity of the person appearing before him.
(3) The Registering Officer has the power to adopt the procedure for issuance of process to the executant or the witness if any, so required for the purpose of registration of a document.
(4) The Registering Officer shall issue Commission to examine a person who is exempted under section 38 of the Registration Act, on the application of the executant."
6. The examination of the matter in the light of the relevant provision of Registration Act, 1908 would show that the claim of petitioners that sale-deed in question was executed and registered on the direction of executant stood negated on the record with the result that the certificate of registration by itself would not be a proof of its execution and genuineness. The record does not contain any explanation that for what reason the executant did not appear before the Registering Officer and why his examination was felt necessary by a local commission who was neither authorized by the executant nor was appointed by the Registering Officer through an express order and in consequence thereto, the conclusion drawn by the learned Judge in the High Court that the defects in the registration of sale-deed were of substantial nature, which would invalidate the registration, is found not suffering from misreading or non-reading of evidence therefore, no exception can be taken to the above conclusion in the given facts. We having scrutinized the record, have not been able to find out any convincing evidence of the payment of sale price or execution of the sale-deed by Manzoor Ahmed respondent who in his statement on oath has denied the execution of sale-deed, receipt of sale price and giving authority to the local commission to make the statement on his behalf before the Registering Authority, therefore, the mere registration of sale-deed would not be enough to declare it a legal document of title. The learned counsel has urged no other ground in support of these petitions.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we having found no substance in these petitions, dismiss the same accordingly. Leave is refused.