1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---The facts in small compass are that petitioners being owners of the agricultural land in village Kalari Tehsil and District Rawalpindi entered into a transaction of sale of land with late Mst. Rashida Bibi predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and out of the total land owned by them, ii alisferred an area of 36 Kanals, 10 Marlas in the name of Mst. Rashida Bibi vide registered sale-deed dated 27-1-1976. The claim of the respondents was that the petitioners having sold 100 Kanals of land in village Kalari to Mst. Rashida Bibi transferred 36 Kanals, 10 Marlas through registered sale-deed with the promise and understanding that remaining area would be transferred in the name of buyers through mutation. According to the respondents, the parties having good relations inter se, did not bother for formal transfer of remaining area of land and later on the death of Mst. Rashida Bibi in 1992, the petitioners denied her title qua the land except the portion which was transferred through registered sale-deed. Consequently, they filed a suit in the year 1993 against the petitioners seeking declaration that they were owners of 100 Kanals of land including the land transferred by the petitioner through registered sale-deed and were owner in possession since 1976. The suit was contested by the petitioners which was ultimately dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment dated 24-10-1995. In appeal preferred by the respondents, an Additional District Judge at Rawalpindi vide judgment dated 25-1-1999 decreed the suit and further the learned Single Judge in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, by dismissing the civil revision filed by the petitioners against the judgment in appeal maintained the decree in favour of respondents. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking leave against the judgment of High Court inter alia on the following grounds:--
(a) That the sale was confined only to the extent of an area of land mentioned in the sale-deed and neither the excess area was part of sale nor its possession was delivered under the sale as claimed.
(b) That the suit was filed in 1993 with regard to the agreement of sale taken place in 1976 and that no reasonable explanation of such a long delay in filing the suit was offered but the Appellate Court and also the High Court without properly attending the question of limitation, decreed the suit.
(c) That there is no evidence en record to establish the delivery of possession of 100 Kanals by the petitioners and payment of price of the same by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents.
2. ' Syed Najamul Hassan Kazmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-caveators, on the other hand, has vehemently contended that as per recital in the sale-deed, the Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the sale-deed were to be read as an integral part of it and these documents would speak in volumes that 100 Kanals of land was sold out of which an area of 36 Kanals, 10 Marlas was transferred through sale-deed and remaining was yet to be transferred and that there. Was ample evidence on record of payment of price of 100 Kanals of land and delivery of possession of the same under sale. The learned counsel next contended that the cause of action for filing the suit accrued in favour of respondents on the death of Mst. Rashida Bibi their predecessor-ininterest, as the petitioners for the first time denied the title of buyer to the remaining land in 1993 therefore, the suit was not barred by time. The learned counsel added that undoubtedly the land was in possession of respondents as owners under the sale since 1976 and therefore, the suit for declaration would also include in it the relief in the form of specific performance of the agreement.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to grant leave in this petition to consider the following questions:--
(a) Whether the transaction of sale related to 100 Kanals or it confined only to the extent of the portion of land mentioned in the sale-deed and the decree passed in favour of respondents for the excess area, was nullity?
(b) Whether possession of the land subject-matter of the dispute, was delivered under the sale on payment of sale price and respondent were deemed to be the owners, of suit-land?
(c) Whether the suit was barred by time or not?
(d) Whether it was only a suit for declaration or would also be deemed to be a suit for specific performance of the agreement and decree was rightly passed in favour of respondents?
4. ' Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted.