' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-12-1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 29-7-1987 of the learned Civil Court dismissing the suit of respondent No.1 for specific performance of the contract of sale.
2. According to the case set up in the plaint by plaintiff-respondent No.1, Ghulam Rasul respondent No.2, herein, sold the disputed land measuring 2 Kanals and 10 Marlas for a consideration of Rs.20,000 in his favour vide sale-deed dated 13-3-1983 (Exh.P.1) which was presented before the Sub-Registrar on 13-3-1983. Respondent No.2 was not, on the said date, in possession of his Identity Card, therefore,' the Sub-Registrar directed the parties to appear on the next day. However, the said respondent showed his inability to appear before the Sub-Registrar as directed and on 14-3-1983, executed an agreement to sell (Exh.P.2) admitting the receipt of Rs.20,000 and simultaneously executed a general power of attorney in favour of one Mohammad Siddique for completion of sale in favour of plaintiff-respondent No.
1. The said attorney, however, sold the disputed land in favour of the petitioner through an oral sale attested on 23-6-1983 vide Mutation No.2350 (Exh.P.3). In these circumstances, respondent No.1 sought specific performance of the contract of sale. Mutation No.2350 evincing oral sale in favour of the petitioner was also assailed.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioner and respondent No.2. Separate written statements were filed. Execution of the sale-deed and the sale agreement were not specifically denied by respondent No.2. According to him, respondent No.1 had paid to him Rs.13,500 which was returned to the plaintiff as he (the plaintiff) had backed out from the bargain. It was further averred that an amount of Rs.6,500 was due from respondent No.
1. In the separate written statement filed by the petitioner she claimed to have purchased the land -from respondent No.2.
4. Necessary issues were framed and the suit was tried. The learned trial Court held that no valid sale agreement was executed between the parties. Accordingly, the suit filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed.
5. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the learned District Court. The learned Additional District Judge appraised the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that execution of the agreement to sell was duly proved. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court were set aside and the suit of respondent No.1 was decreed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and was, therefore, protected. He next contended that execution of the unregistered sale-deed and agreement to sell was rightly disbelieved by the learned trial Court, appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court ought to have been respected by the learned Ist Appellate Court. He next contended that the observation of the 1st Appellate Court that except the word of respondent No.2, there was no evidence is based on non-reading of the record inasmuch as that the testimony of D.W.2/1 and D.W.2/2 was ignored.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the execution of a document is essentially a question of fact which stands concluded by a finding of fact duly arrived at by the learned Ist Appellate Court after appraisal of the evidence produced in the case. His grievance is that the learned trial Court, while dismissing the suit of respondent No.1 had not even taken into consideration the contents of the written statement of respondent No.2 and his categorical admission as D.W.1/1.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No.2 appeared as D.W.1/1 and admitted that he sold the land in dispute in favour of respondent No.1 for a consideration of Rs.20,000 but he was paid a sum of Rs.12,500 (in the written statement he had claimed to have returned a sum of Rs.13,500 to respondent No.1) and on the asking of respondent No.1 had appointed Muhammad Siddique as his general attorney. In cross-examination he categorically admitted that he executed the sale-deed Exh.P/1 and the sale agreement Exh.P.2.
Apart from categorical admission of execution of Exhs.P.1 and P.2 by respondent No.2, Faqir Hussain was examined as P.W.1 who testified to the execution of Exh.P.1. He was one of the marginal witnesses. Muhammad Hussain and Zafar Ali, the marginal witnesses of Exh.P.2, were examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4 who testified to the execution of Exh.P.2. It may also be noted that in the written statement, respondent No.2 had not specifically denied execution of sale-deed and the sale agreement. His case was that respondent No.1 had backed out and had received back the amount of Rs.13,500 which he had paid to him (respondent No.2).
9. The execution of, sale agreement thus stood duly proved and-Ahere was no evidence in support of the plea of respondent No.2 that respondent No.1 had received back the amount paid to respondent No.2 except the bare word of respondent No.2.
10. The case of the petitioner is that she was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and was thus protected. This plea was not even taken in the written statement nor there is any evidence to support the plea. I have considered the statements of D.W.2/1 and D.W.2/2. According to them Muhammad Siddique (the attorney, of respondent No.2) had informed them that since respondent No.1 had not paid sale consideration, the bargain could not be finalized. They were not witnesses to the transaction whereby an amount of Rs.13,500 was statedly returned by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, Muhammad Siddique, the attorney of respondent No.2 was not examined.
D.W.2/1 and D.W.2/2 admitted that they came to know later that Ghulam Rasul, respondent No.2 had entered into a bargain with respondent No.l. Instead of supporting the case of the petitioner or respondent No.2, they were supporting the case of respondent No. 1.
11. For what has been stated above, this revision petition has no merit which is accordingly dismissed. There is no order as to costs.