MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This judgment proposes to decide six civil revisions i.e. Civil Revision No.621 of 2006 to Civil Revision No.626 of 2006, as all these petitions raise similar questions of law/facts, arise in alike circumstances and impugn same judgments/decrees of the Courts below. All these petitions assail judgments/decrees dated 15-10-2003 and 3-3-2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District. Judge, Sargodha, whereby six distinct suits filed by the petitioners and their appeals were dismissed, respectively.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that predecessor-in-interest of the respondents namely, Muhammad Shafi along with his brother Said Muhammad and Muhammad Sadiq son of Daulat Khan being owners of agricultural land measuring 105 Kanals, situated in Chak No.55/SB, Tehsil and District Sargodha, through inheritance Mutation No.232, dated 16-7-1977 entered into six different agreements to sell dated 2-4-1984 with late Muhammad Sarwar predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and after receipt of earnest money, executed the agreements.
3. Mutation No.232, dated 16-7-1977, which was sanctioned on death of one Muhammad Hussain in favour of the prospective vendors, was challenged through a civil suit by one Manzoor Ahmed claiming 1/3rd share in the land on the basis of "Will". Suit for declaration by Manzoor Ahmed was dismissed by the trial Court on 23-5-1983 but the appellate Court taking different view, decreed his suit on 14-1-1984, whereby "Will" was held to be valid and inheritance Mutation No.232 was directed to be cancelled. Dispute came before this Court in Civil Revision No.775 of 1984, which was accepted on 28-2-2000 and judgment of the trial Court was ordered to be revived. At this juncture, above referred agreements to sell were entered between the parties thereto. In the meanwhile, above referred Manzoor Ahmed challenged judgment of this Court, dated 28-2-2000 passed in Civil Revision No.775 of 1984 before the Honourable Supreme Court by filing Civil Petition No.1215/L of 2000, where parties entered into a compromise on the basis of which petition was converted into an appeal and judgment of this Court was set aside, reviving the judgment, dated 14-1-1984 by the learned District Judge, Sargodha, vide judgment, dated 9-5-2003.
4. Executants of the agreements to sell, dated 2-4-1984, pending litigation, on 27-6-1984 received some other amounts from the revision petitioners and executed certain sale-deeds, partially performing their part of contract. Petitioners on approach to the respondents to perform their remaining part of contract, were refused. Thereafter, they issued some legal notice which remained unreplied, necessitating filing of suits for specific performance before the learned Civil Judge at Sargodha, which were ultimately dismissed on 15-10-2003.
5. Petitioners aggrieved of judgments/decrees of the trial Court, filed appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha but remained unsuccessful, as the same were also dismissed on 3-3-2005. Petitioners thereafter, filed above noted six revision petitions for adjudgment of concurrent judgments/decrees of the two Courts below.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly, net result of litigation arising out of inheritance Mutation No.232, which was challenged by Manzoor Ahmed on the basis of "Will" in his favour was that Said Muhammad, Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Sadiq, who had executed the agreements to sell dated 2-4- 1984 had died in the meanwhile and their ownership of only 35 Kanals of land, fell to the share of the respondents by succession. The bulk of land agreed to be sold went to the share of Manzoor Ahmed in view of judgment, dated 9-5-2003 by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.P. No.1215/L of 2000, as judgment by this Court, dated 28-2-2000 was graciously set aside, by reviving the judgment, dated 14-1-1984 by the learned District Judge, Sargodha. The latter judgment had cancelled Mutation of Inheritance No.232. Question which hinges for determination is to the effect that respondents were not in a position to perform their part of contract on account of judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court in earlier round of litigation and the agreement executed by their A predecessors became impossible to act upon. In other words, the agreements stood frustrated in entirety except 35 Kanals of land, which further had been distributed by succession into fractional shares in favour of their heirs/legal representatives., In the circumstances of this case, agreements dated 2-4-1984 had become void. Law to this effect was enacted in section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872, which provided that agreement to sell which afterwards become impossible of performance or unlawful would become void. Since the agreements, the performance of A which was prayed by the petitioners had become void i.e. Impossible of performance, the only course open for the petitioners was to sue the respondents for loss, if any, sustained by them on account of their non-performance and for return of their advanced money.
7. As regards the share of land coming to the respondents, which measured 35 Kanals, petitioners have already got sale-deeds in their favour executed vide Document No.1368, Behi No.1, Volume No.402 dated 27-6-1984, whereby 70 Kanals of land out of 105 Kanals was transferred in their favour, thus, they being holders of sale-deed beyond the share of the respondents, no adjudication on this account as well was needed on their suits for specific performance.
8. Besides the reasons noted above, scan of record revealed that both the Courts below correctly concluded the lis and committed no illegality/irregularity amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court and consequently, all these petitions being devoid of any merit, are dismissed in limine.