IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 226-P OF 2018 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 
17.04.2018 passed by the Peshawar High 
Court, Circuit Bench, Chitral in Civil Revision 
No. 352/2008) 
 
Rehmat Wali Khan and another 
 
 
 
 
… Appellants 
Versus 
Ghulam Muhammad and others 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellants: 
Mr. Asif Hameed Qureshi, ASC 
(Via video link from Peshawar) 
 
 
For the Respondent (1): 
Mr. Muhammad Aamir Malik, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
For Respondents (2-6): 
Ex-parte 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
11.04.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this appeal under 
Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, 
the appellants have assailed the judgment dated 17.04.2018 passed by the 
learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench Chitral 
whereby the Civil Revision filed by the respondents was allowed, the 
judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court dated 12.11.2007 
was set aside and the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court 
dated 26.08.2006 was restored.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that predecessor-in-
interest of the respondents namey Daud Ghulam filed a suit for 
declaration and permanent injunction in the PATA Court of EAC, Mastuj 
against the appellants claiming ownership of the land measuring 2 ½ 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 226-P OF 2018 
-: 2 :-
chakorum situated in Boni, Tehsil Mastuj, District Chitral on the basis of an 
unregistered deed dated 08.06.1978. The learned Trial Court vide 
judgment and decree dated 04.11.1999 decreed the suit. The appellants 
filed appeal before the District Judge, Chitral, which was partly accepted 
and the case was remanded back to the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court 
again decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 09.07.2004. 
Feeling aggrieved by this judgment, both the parties filed separate 
appeals, which were again remanded to the learned Trial Court for a 
decision afresh. The learned Trial Court re-heard the parties for the third 
time and again decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 
26.08.2006. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed two appeals before the 
learned Appellate Court, which were accepted vide judgment dated 
12.11.2007 and decree in favour of the respondents was set aside. This led 
to filing of Civil Revision No. 352/2008 before the learned Peshawar High 
Court by the respondents. The learned High Court vide impugned 
judgment allowed the Civil Revision, set aside the judgment of the 
Appellate Court and restored that of the learned Trial Court dated 
26.08.2006. Hence, this appeal.   
3. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants 
contended that the alleged sale deed dated 08.08.1978 was an 
unregistered document, therefore, it did not confer any title on the 
respondents. Contends that the suit filed by the respondents was barred 
by time but the learned High Court did not consider this aspect of the 
matter. Contends that the appellant No. 2 Mir Nawaz was a bona fide 
purchaser from appellant Rehmat Wali on the basis of registered sale deed 
dated 22.10.1988, as such, his rights are protected under the law. Lastly 
contends that the impugned judgment is the result of mis-reading and 
non-reading of evidence, therefore, the same may be set at naught.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 
has defended the impugned judgment by stating that the learned High 
Court has passed a well reasoned judgment, which is based on correct 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 226-P OF 2018 
-: 3 :-
appreciation of the evidence available on the record, therefore, the same 
needs no interference.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the available record with their able assistance.  
6. 
 
This case has a chequered history. There is no denial to this 
fact that the matter is lingering on since 1989 and it was twice remanded 
back to the learned Trial Court due to one reason or the other and the suit 
of the respondents was thrice decreed by the learned Trial Court. In the 
instant round of litigation, the judgment of the learned Trial Court was set 
aside by the learned Appellate Court. Probably, it was due to this reason 
that the learned High Court has exhaustively examined the evidence to 
come to a definite conclusion. It was the claim of the predecessor-in-
interest of the respondents namely Daud Ghulam that he was doing 
private business as motor mechanic and was living in Karachi to earn 
livelihood for the last 36 years. The appellant No. 1 Rehmat Ali sold the 
suit land to the said Daud Ghulam on installments and possession was also 
handed over to him in the year 1971. Daud Ghulam regularly paid the 
installments and after the completion of the installments, Rehmat Ali 
executed an un-registered sale deed dated 08.08.1978 in favour of the 
said Daud Ghulam, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. During trial 
proceedings, the appellant Rehmat Ali, vendor, not only admitted the 
execution of the sale deed but also admitted the payment of sale 
consideration. He also admitted that the possession of the suit property 
had also been delivered in consequence of the sale transaction. During the 
course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants had argued that 
the appellant No. 2 Mir Nawaz was a bona fide purchaser from appellant 
Rehmat Wali on the basis of registered sale deed dated 22.10.1988 (which 
was subsequent in time), as such, his rights are protected under the law. 
However, we do not tend to agree with the learned counsel. In the case of 
Sardar Arshad Hussain Vs. Mst. Zenat-un-Nisa (2017 SCMR 608) the 
question whether the un-registered sale deed can be given preference 
over the registered one when on the basis of un-registered sale deed 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 226-P OF 2018 
-: 4 :-
possession of the property has also been given, came up for consideration 
before this Court and this Court while relying on earlier judgments of this 
Court on the subject candidly held as follows:- 
“A registered deed reflecting transfer of certain rights qua a property 
though will have sanctity attached to it regarding its genuineness, and a 
stronger evidence would be required to cast aspersions on its correctness 
but cannot be given preference over an un-registered deed vide which 
physical possession of the property has also been given. Subsection (1) of 
section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908 also provides that a registered 
document regarding transfer of certain rights in an immovable property 
will have effect against every un-registered document relating to the 
same property and conferring the same rights in the property as shown in 
the registered document but the law has also provided certain exceptions 
to the above said provisions of law. If a person being in possession of an 
un-registered deed qua transfer of certain rights in property along with 
possession of the same he can legally protect his rights in the property 
and even a registered deed subsequent in time will not affect his/her 
rights. The first proviso to section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908 
provides so that such rights in the property can be protected under 
section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Reliance in this regard 
can well be placed on the cases of Fazla v. Mehr Dina and 2 others (1999 
SCMR 837) and Mushtaq Ahmad and others v. Muhammad Saeed and 
others (2004 SCMR 530).” 
(underlined to lay emphasis) 
 
7. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellanta had also argued that the 
suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was barred by 
time. However, we have noted that neither the appellants ever tried to get 
an issue framed on this point nor this question was ever considered by the 
courts below. Therefore, the same cannot be raised before this Court at 
this stage. Even otherwise, when pursuant to the un-registered sale deed, 
the respondents were put in possession of the suit land in the year 1971, a 
vested right had been created in their favour, which cannot be taken away 
merely on the basis of technicalities. In the case of Syed Hakeem Shah Vs. 
Muhammad Idrees (2017 SCMR 316) the sale consideration was totally 
paid and possession was also delivered to the vendee/transferee but the 
registered document could not be executed. This Court held that “Section 
53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in itself creates a right in favour of 
transferee to retain possession. Such right comes into existence when 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 226-P OF 2018 
-: 5 :-
transferor put the transferee in possession in part performance of the 
contract/sale deed. Right created by Section 53-A in favour of the 
transferee in possession can be termed as an equitable title which he held 
in the property. Where the transferee continued to enjoy a right then the 
statute of limitation cannot take away such right as the law of limitation is 
not meant to take away an existing right. Right created under Section 53-A 
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is an existing right and is not 
extinguished by any length of time. Law of limitation does not come in the 
way of a transferee in possession when he as a plaintiff, filed his own suit 
to preserve his right to retain possession that was granted to him under 
Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.” In this view of the 
matter, we are of the view that the learned High Court has correctly 
appreciated the material aspects of the case and the conclusions drawn 
are in line with the guidelines enunciated by this Court on the subject. 
Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any legal 
or factual error in the impugned judgment, which could be made basis to 
take a different view from that of the learned High Court.   
8. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this appeal having no 
merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
11th of April, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram