' IQBAL HAMEEDUR REHMAN, J.---Brief facts leading to this civil revision are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement against respondent No,2, Nazir Ahmad alias Nazir Ahmad Shah/defendant narrating the facts in the plaint that respondent No,2/defenndat entered into an agreement to sell for land measuring 8 kanals, 19 marlas for a total consideration of Rs,75,000. Rs,10,000 were paid as earnest money and vide registered agreement, dated 16-1-1989, the rest of the amount of Rs,65000 was to be paid till 15-2-1989. The petitioner/plaintiff brought the remaining amount at the office of Sub-Registrar, Muzaffargarh, on 15-2-1989 and moved an application to the Sub-Registrar but respondent No,2/defendant did not mark his attendance. At 4-00 p.m. Respondent No,2/defendant reached and moved an application to the Sub-Registrar for cancellation of the agreement. As the petitioner/plaintiff was ready to perform his part of the agreement by payment of Rs,65000, the Sub-Registrar asked respondent No,2/defendant to honour the agreement but respondent No,2/defendant refused and went away.
The suit was contested by respondent No,2/defendant by filing a written statement. Issues were framed. The parties adduced their respective evidence. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh, after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, decreed the suit vide judgment, dated 30-11-1995 in favor of the plaintiff/petitioner for a total consideration of Rs,75,000.
As Rs,10,000 were already paid by the plaintiff/petitioner, he was directed to pay rest of the consideration amount of Rs,65,000 within one month. The respondents/defendants were directed to execute a registered sale-deed with respect to the land in favor of the petitioner/plaintiff, failing which the petitioner/plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale-deed registered through filing an execution petition in the Court. Against the said judgment, Mst. Saddan/respondent No,1 filed an appeal against the petitioner/plaintiff and respondent No,2 Nazi Ahmad alias Nazeer Ahmad Shah.
The same was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge-I Muzaffargarh, vide his judgment, dated 10-7-1996 and the judgment, dated 30-11-1995 was set aside. Against the said judgment, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed this civil revision.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the judgments ofthe Courts below are at variance and the learned appellate Court without applying its mind to the evidence on record unlawfully reversed the findings on issue No,3 and that the petitioner's agreement to sell, dated 16-1-1989 was a registered document and, therefore, it was a public document and the petitioner was not required to give any notice of his transaction to the public and the learned appellate Court has omitted to keep this fact in consideration.
3. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that original owner, Nazir Ahmad/respondent No,2/ defendant has stated in his written statement that vide Mutation No,728, dated 18-2-1989, he transferred the property in favor of Mst. Saddan respondent No,1 and in this regard no question or suggestion was put to respondent No,2 Nazir Ahmad and that respondent No,1 Mst. Saddan being a bona fide purchaser was entitled to notice by the petitioner but no notice was given to her because at the time of purchase, she had no knowledge about the earlier agreement to sell and, therefore, the learned appellate Court rightly accepted the appeal of respondent No,1 Mst. Saddan.
4. I have heard learned counsel for, the parties and perused the impugned judgment.
5. Admittedly, respondent No,1 after the attestation of Mutation No,728, dated 18-2-1989 Exh.D2 is in possession of the disputed property because the same was handed over to her by respondent No,2 Nazeer Ahmad Shah, who was original owner in the Revenue Record and for this very reason, the impugned mutation was attested in favor of respondent No,l. The evidence available on the record also shows that no notice about the transaction between the petitioner and respondent No,2 had been given to her. Total amount of sale consideration had been paid by respondent No,1 at the time of taking possession of the disputed property which was shown to be free from all encumbrances. It has rightly been held that respondent No,1 was a bona tide purchaser for A consideration without notice. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 has drawn the attention of this Court to written statement filed by Nazeer Ahmad/respondent No,2 in which he had stated that he had sold the property in dispute to Mst. Saddan respondent No,1, therefore, burden of proof was shifted upon the petitioner and rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff while relying upon Messrs Pak United Housing Enterprise v. Ramzan and 7 others (1992 CLC 1678). The learned appellate Court further held that the petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to got decree for specific performance, even though he was in a position to prove that he has purchased the property through a valid agreement to sell. He remained negligent because wen it had come to his notice that respondent No,2 was further going to alienate theproperty, he should have at least sent a notice to respondent No,1 to bring to her knowledge that he had contracted to purchase the suit property and she should not purchase the property in dispute on payment. But he failed to do so. In view of the same, the learned Appellate Court had rightly accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment, dated 30-11-1995 passed by the learned trial Court relying upon Messrs Pak United Housing Enterprise v. Ramzan, and 7 others (1992 CLC 1678).
7. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.