1. Through this civil revision petitioners have challenged the judgment & decree dated 29.10.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kot Addu whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 13.12.1995 passed by learned Civil Judge, Kot Addu whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs-petitioners on 02.12.1992 filed a suit for declaration that they are owner in possession of the suit property, fully described in the plaint. The basic attack of the plaintiffs was on a “Dastbardari Nama”/Relinquishment Deed registered on 20.12.1958 vide No. 498 and subsequent transactions on the basis of said Relinquishment Deed. The grounds of attack on the said documents were that plaintiffs were minors at the time of alleged Relinquishment Deed, same is result of fraud and forgery on the part of defendant No. 1 and further that the said document has no legal value.
3. So far as concurrent findings of fact with regard to age of the plaintiffs are concerned, I do not want to dilate upon these concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below but the scrutiny of the impugned document is required as the learned counsel for the petitioners not only succeeded in attacking the document to show the defects in the document and further I have to dilate upon the legal value of the document if it is found that same was rightly registered. The front side of page No. 1 of this document which has been produced as Exh.D4,shows affixation of thumb impression of Ghulam Haider. The second page is also showing affixation of thumb impression of Ghulam Haider whereas the 1/4th lower part of this page is torn. The document shows that it has been written by Ghulam Haider, Ghulam Nabi and Khair Din sons of Jalal Din in favour of Elahi Bakhsh son of Allah Diwaya, it does not show signature or thumb impression of any other person. So far as endorsement by the Sub Registrar, Kot Addu upon the back side of Page No. 1 is concerned, it shows that Khair Din and Ghulam Nabi appeared at the time of registration, on their behalf as well as on behalf of Ghulam Haider, which means that Ghulam Haider did not appear at the time of registration of this Relinquishment Deed and signatures of Khair Din and Ghulam Nabi are not available at least on the front side of page No.1 of this document and page No. 2. The thumb impression upon both the pages mentioned as of Ghulam Haider and Ghulam Haider did not appear at the time of registration of this document. In this situation this document has not been proved to be a valid registered document and further position that what is the value of this Relinquishment Deed.
4. The intention of writing of this document, if its execution and registration is proved, seems that a property transferred in favour of the persons through registered Sale Deed is going to be returned to the seller of the property through this Relinquishment Deed. The question remains whether such like document can be said to be a valid document in the light of section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. It is intention of section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 that a contract contrary to public policy which defeats the provisions of law that contract is not lawful. In this case it is not denied that a property was transferred in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners through a registered Sale Deed and through the impugned Relinquishment Deed retransfer of the said property is intended. The stamp duty of Rs:16/- has been paid on this document whereas the valuation of the property was Rs:1500/- at the time of transfer through registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners and requisite stamp duty was paid. In my view a person can relinquish a right which is yet to be transferred in his favour and the instrument of Relinquishment Deed cannot be used for transfer of rights of a person relinquishing the right in favour of the other side, therefore, for this reason this Relinquishment Deed, the intention of which is to transfer the rights of the plaintiffs-petitioners in the property in favour of the respondents, has no value in the eye of law and cannot be used as an instrument to transfer the rights of one party in favour of other party. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by both the courts below are against the law when same have been recorded by ignoring the legal position noted supra.
5. For what has been discussed above, I accept this civil revision, set aside the impugned judgments & decrees passed by both the courts below and decree the suit filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners.
Further information regarding relinquishment deed and scope of rights which may be relinquished can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.