Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Review Petition No. 27 of 1974, decided on 29th October 1975.
(On review from the judgment of this Court dated 11‑6‑74, in Civil Petition No. 121 of 1974).
‑ Sched., Part I‑Transfer of house‑Mutation‑‑Settlement Commis sioner's finding that chaubara in dispute formed no part of residential portion transferred to petitioner and such chaubara being a shop situated in commercial area not transferable to petitioner‑Reliance by Settlement Commissioner for purpose on a registered sale‑deed‑ Contention that mutation in respect of sale not being attested deed of sale of no value‑Not correct‑Registered sale‑deed, held, not rendered void merely for reason of mutation not being attested Finding of fact regarding chaubara not forming part of residential portion‑A finding of fact not liable to be interfered with in leave to appeal proceedings.‑[ Mutation].
Raja Azizuadin Ahmad, M. Aslam Chattha (absent), instructed by Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nerno for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 29th October 1975.
‑This is an application for the review of an order of this Court passed in Civil Petition No. 121 of 1974. Learned counsel contends that the main ground, on which the petition was dismissed, was that the chambara in dispute was treated as a shop, "since the property in dispute was situated in predominantly commercial area, namely, Jhang Bazar, Lyallpur." Learned counsel contends that this fact has been taken from the judgment of the High Court, but the learned Judge in the High Court fell into an error and was under a misconception in holding that the premises were situated in a predominant commercial area. No Settlement Authority has held to that effect.
Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the various orders of the Settlement Authorities to show that there is no finding of any authority to the effect that the area was a predominant commercial area, but on perusal of the orders of the Settlement Authorities, we are satisfied that the main contention of the other aide was that the area was a predominant commercial area and, therefore, the chaubara, situated over the shop could be treated as a part of the shop.
This contention was not contradicted by any one, nor is there any Ending by any authority that the area was not a predominant commercial area. In fact, it is admitted that the premises is situated in Jhang Bazar, Lyallpur.
Learned counsel also tried to contend that this Court had omitted to notice that the present petitioner was the senior allottee in respect of the residential portion and that the chaubara was connected to the residential Portion. In the absence of the chaubara, the petitioner would not be able to make further utilization of the roof of his residential portion.
We have re‑examined the order of the settlement Commissioner and we find that he has come to the conclusion that the chaubara was not a the residential part of portion and that the petitioner having been transferred the residential portion got a house to which alone he was entitled under the law, he could not, therefore, claim the chadara unless he could establish that it was a part of the residential portion transferred to him.
The Settlement Commissioner has come to a finding of fact that the Chaubara was not a part of the residential portion. He has relied for this purpose on a registered deed of sale, but learned counsel contends that since the mutation in respect of the sale was not attested, the deed is of no value. We are unable to agree. A registered deed of sale does not become void merely because a mutation in respect of the sale is not attested.
In the circumstances, we find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer