' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The parties to this petition are the lineal descendants of one Akbar Ali.
The respondent Musarrat Iqbal Akhtar is the grandson (Pota) of Akbar Ali. He filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell (Exh.P.10) allegedly executed in his favour by Akbar Ali on 7-5-1986. The petitioners are respectively the sons and daughters of Akbar Ali. Here it may be noted that Akbar Ali was the original defendant in the suit and had himself filed a written statement denying ever having executed the agreement (Exh. P. 10).
2. During the pendency of the suit Akbar Ali died and thereafter the petitioners were impleaded as his L.Rs,
3. Based on the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as 10 issues including that of relief. Both the parties led evidence on the same. The learned trial Court after considering the same dismissed the suit on 7-3-1996. However, an appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff has been allowed by the learned District Judge on 24-11-2005. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the land, which is subject-matter of the alleged agreement, is situated in Chak No,285-GB Toba Tek Singh and Akbar Ali was also resident of the same Chak. The respondent/plaintiff was resident of Sargodha. However, the stamp paper for the agreement was purchased in Attock and the agreement was also allegedly executed in Attock and the agreement was also allegedly executed in Attock although the parties and the A subject-matter of the agreement have no nexus with Attock. It was further contended that the two marginal witnesses, namely,. Shamshad Akhtar (P.W.5) and Mirza Asif Baig (P.W.4) are also respectively residents of far-flung Districts and are close friends/relatives of the respondent/plaintiff.
5. In addition it is important to note that the petitioners/defendants had also filed an application praying that the thumb-impression of Akbar Ali appearing in the written statement be compared with B the alleged thumb-impression on the agreement (Exh. P . 10). This application, however, was resisted by the respondent/ plaintiff.
6. It is contended that the learned trial Court considered all the above aspects of the case while concluding that Akbar Ali had not, in fact, executed the agreement. The learned appellate Court without addressing the reasoning of the learned trial Court and also without adverting to the above circumstances and the material discrepancies in the testimony of the P.WS., as noted by the learned trial Court, has proceeded to reverse the findings of the learned trial Court.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent was unable to controvert the above submissions. I also find it very strange that according to the respondent/plaintiff, he had paid the total consideration of Rs,1,20,000 to his grandfather Akbar Ali, but he did not obtain any conveyance deed. This is even more surprising considering that the agreement was allegedly executed on 7-5-1986 and the transfer of title was purportedly agreed to be effected one week later. Learned counsel for the respondent was asked to explain the reason behind these unusual circumstances. He could not give any satisfactory answer. He merely emphasized that the respondent's father had lodged case F.I.R. No,167 (Exh.P.13) which was not consistent with the testimony of the respondent's father. This cannot benefit the respondent. The respondent/ plaintiff has to prove his own case which, for reasons noted above, he has failed to do.
8. In the above circumstances, the impugned appellate decree dated 24-11-2005 is set aside. As a result, the decree of the learned trial Court dated 7-3-1996 stands restored. The petitioners shall also be entitled to their costs throughout.