' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. Respondent No,1/Muhammad Ramzan, brought a suit for the specific performance against Khalil-ur-Rehman, Mst. Najma Khatoon, Mst. Latifan and Mst. Rashidan, claiming that the house in dispute is owned by Khalil-ur-Rehman and Najma, who had entered into an agreement to sell, dated 18-3-1978 Exh.P.1 with him, which they have failed to perform and thus, the plaintiff sought the enforcement of the said agreement, through the decree of the Court. The respondents including Mst. Latifan, Mst. Rashidan and Mst. Najma, admitted that Khalil-ur-Rehman, is the owner of the property, as is clear from paragraph 2 of their written statement when read in conjunction with the corresponding paragraph of the plaint. Anyhow, Mst. Rashidan also filed a separate suit, claiming that she is the widow of Abdul Rashid Khan, who being the owner of the property, through his will dated 22-12-1960 Exh.D.1, had bequeathed in her favour, and thereafter, Khalil-ur-Rehman etc. Could not enter into a valid sale agreement with the respondent. Both the suits were consolidated, and during the trial, Mst. Rashidan expired when Mst. Zubaida along with Mst. Latifan, were impleaded as a party in the suit for declaration being successors of their mother.
Be that as it may, after the trial, the learned Civil Judge, seized of the matter, vide judgment and decree, dated 7-7-1986, allowed the suit for the specific performance filed by the respondent, and dismissed the other. Against the above judgments and decrees, the appellants only filed one appeal, i.e, in the case pertaining to the specific performance, whereas no appeal is shown to have been filed, against the judgment and decree, in the suit for declaration, originally filed by. Rashidan, in which the present appellants were impleaded as her legal representatives. Be that as it may, this appeal has been disallowed by the learned Additional District Judge on 5-12-1992, by upholding the judgment and the decree of the trial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends, that the house in question was allotted in favour of Abdul Rashid Khan; Mst. Zubaida and Mst. Latifan, were the daughters of Abdul Rashid Khan, whereas Mst. Rashidan was his widow, thus, Khalilur-Rehman as the son shall not inherit the whole of the property to the exclusion of others, whereas his wife was not the owner at all, therefore, any agreement to sell, by Khalil and Mst. Najma, could not be enforced against other heirs of Abdul Rashid Khan. It is also submitted, that originally Mst. Zubaida was not impleaded as a party in the suit for the specific performance, and resultantly, no decree against her could be passed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As far as Mst. Rashidan and Mst. Latifan are concerned, suffice it to say, that in their written statement, while replying to paragraph 2 of the plaint in the suit for specific performance, they have admitted that Khalil-ur-Rehman and Najma, are the owners of the property; Mst. Zubaida had never moved any application to be arrayed as party in that suit; she though was a party in the other suit for declaration, filed by her mother, and this suit having been consolidated together Along with the suit for specific performance, yet she never came forward to assert her co-ownership in the property in question on the basis of the inheritance of Abdul Rashid. This has not been her case in both the matters, that she has any independent right or interest in the property being the legal heir of Abdul Rashid.
4. In the light of what has been stated above, I do not find any error in the impugned decision justifying to upset the concurrent finding of facts, recorded by the two Courts below, calling for interference in the second appeal, as the judgments and decrees are not shown to be contrary to law or suffering from the vice of reading of evidence. Therefore, this appeal has no merits and is hereby dismissed.