SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, J.--- This regular second appeal is directed against the appellate judgment and decree, dated 28-2-2000, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree, dated 16-4-1980 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and specific performance in respect of the suit property alleging therein that respondent No.1 had executed an agreement to sell, dated 16-7-1974 in respect of the suit property.
It was further alleged that the total consideration agreed between the parties of Rs.27,000 was also paid. However, the execution of a formal sale-deed was postponed till the successful conclusion of the pending litigation in respect of the suit property filed against respondent No.1. It was also contended in the plaint that respondent No.1 had illegally gifted the said property to respondent No.2 his son. It was prayed that the gift in favour of respondent No.2 be declared to be without lawful authority. A decree for specific performance as well as permanent injunction protecting possession of the appellant was also prayed for. The respondents entered appearance and contested the suit claiming inter alia that the alleged agreement to sell was result of fraud and misrepresentation inasmuch as respondent No.1 had been persuaded to execute the document on the representation that the same was a special power of attorney for the purpose of contesting the already pending litigation. On the divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed, evidence was led and whereafter the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 16-4-1980 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal which also failed to find favour and was dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this appeal has also been perused.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the two Courts below have misinterpreted the record and misapplied the law. It is further contended that the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses produced were minor in nature, hence, were liable to be ignored.
The learned counsel further added that the mere fact that respondent No.1 is a Pardanashin woman, on its own, is not a ground sufficient for dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and has further contended that there is a concurrent finding of fact, which cannot be upset in a second appeal.
5. There can be no cavil with the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that mere fact that respondent No.1 is Pardanashin woman does not ipso facto grant her the right to resile from any transaction entered into by her. However, where a party to a transaction is a Pardanashin woman, such fact is of importance and cannot be ignored and must necessarily be examined in the context of the other evidence of the record. In the instant case, there are material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses produced on behalf of the plaintiff. The said witnesses have contradicted each other on such material aspect as to the venue where the bargain took place and as to the person who obtained the stamp-paper whereupon the alleged agreement has been executed. The said contradictions cannot be brushed aside as minor discrepancies. The defence witnesses whose presence has been proved on record either by the statements of the witnesses of the appellant or by the documentary evidence supported the case of the respondents, more particularly, with reference to the allegation that the document was not read over and explained to respondent No.1 prior to its execution. Considering the aforesaid matters in the context of the facts that respondent No.1 is a Pardanashin illiterate woman and the trial Court returned the finding that the alleged agreement is the result of fraud and decided the issues framed in this behalf in favour of the respondents. The aforesaid finding was affirmed in appeal. There is a concurrent finding of fact based on cogent reasons. No misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed at the bar. The learned counsel for the appellant is seeking reappraisal of the evidence, which is not possible at this stage of the second appeal. Consequently this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the concurrent and consistent findings arrived at by the two Courts below, which appear to be in accordance with the evidence on record and the law. This appeal being without any merit is IC hereby dismissed.