' On the basis of an agreement to sell dated 12-12-1978 (Exh.P.1) a suit for specific performance was filed by the appellant against respondent No.1 and the vendee of the suit-land, respondent No.2 herein. It was initially contested by respondent No.1 through the written statement filed by him denying the execution of any such agreement. Respondent No.2 also contested the same pleading inter alia that he was bona fide purchaser for valuable, consideration without notice of any such agreement. Issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were framed by the trial Court. After recording the evidence which was produced by the parties, the trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit vide its judgment dated 14-4-1996, so far as the vendee/respondent No.2 is concerned, but found the appellant/plaintiff entitled to recovery Rs.50,000 from defendant/ respondent No.1 as compensation and damages. Respondent No.1 did not but the appellant only preferred an appeal there-against, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, vide judgment dated 23-10-1999. Through this second appeal the plaintiff/appellant seeks the reversal of the concurrent judgments of the Courts below.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It is contended by the learned counsel that the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance as respondent No.1 had admitted the execution of agreement in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and that the execution of the agreement was even otherwise proved on the record. It is contended that alternate prayer made by the plaintiff for compensation did not disentitle him to seek the performance of the agreement and decree accordingly. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has while supporting the concurrent findings contended that the Courts below have acted in accordance with law who have committed no illegality whatsoever. According to him respondent No.2 had acted in good faith and purchased the suit property for a consideration of Rs.80,000 who had no notice whatsoever of any such alleged agreement. It is contended that respondent No.1 had through his written statement denied the execution of agreement dated 12-12-1978 but due to his close relationship with the appellant/ plaintiff changed his stance later on whose credibility was thus questionable. He has placed reliance upon Government of Pakistan and 3 others v. Kamruddin Valika 1996 CLC 1086.
' Respondent No.1, had admittedly neither assailed the judgment of the trial Court nor had appeared to contest the appeal, before the lower Appellate Court. The same position continues before this Court even. The appeal thus, Ltas been heard ex parte qua him.
3. The consideration of the pleadings, evidence led by the parties and the findings recorded by the Courts below led me to the conclusion that the approach adopted and the conclusion drawn are eminently justified, supported by the evidence and in accord with the legal position obtaining in the matter. There was a clear denial of execution of agreement by Liaqat Ali respondent/defendant No.1 in his written statement filed before the trial Court. Rather he attributed the commission of fraud with him. At a later stage of the trial he, however, appeared as P.W.6 and gave a supportive statement in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. The evidentiary value and credibility of such a statement, which was inconsistent with his plea in the written statement, was of no worth and value. It is worth noting that he did not agitate the B matter before the first Appellate Court or even before this Court. Issues Nos.2 and 6 were taken and dealt with together by the trial Court who on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that respondents No.2 was purchaser for consideration, without notice who had acted in good faith. Such findings were affirmed by the First Appellate Court in view of its own appreciation of the evidence on the record. Stress of the appellant upon the fact that Muhammad Younas P.W.4 had been in cultivating possession on his behalf could not alter the legal position and the findings of the Courts below that respondent No.2 acted in good faith and purchased the property for valuable consideration. It did not ipso facto entitle the appellant/plaintiff to a decree for specific performance of the agreement invoked by him. These are essentially findings of fact, which find ample support from the preponderance of the circumstances and justifies no interference by this Court.
Suffice it to observe that the appellant/plaintiff had himself prayed for an alternate relief of recovery from respondent No.
1. Such prayer has been granted by the Courts and he has been further compensated by awarding damages worth of Rs.20,000. He has been duly compensated by granting a decree against respondent No.1 for recovery of the amount of Rs.30,000, which was claimed to have been paid by him and Rs.20,000 as damages. In such circumstances I find no justification to interfere with the view taken by the Courts below.
' The appeal, therefore, being without merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.