' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- On 18-9-1989, the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent. In the plaint, it was stated that the suit-land, mentioned in the plaint was owned by the respondents as detailed in para-1 thereof. They agreed to sell the suit-land to the petitioners for a consideration of Rs,32,000. The entire amount was paid .Whereupon agreement dated 24-8-1989 was executed and possession was delivered. The respondents have now refused to perform their part of contract. A decree for specific performance of agreement was prayed for. The respondents in their written statement denied having entered into any agreement with the petitioner or to have received any money from them. Delivery of possession was also denied. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 1-6-1992. Learned ADJ., Kaloor Kot dismissed the first appeal on 22-2-1995.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the evidence on record has been misread and that the learned Courts below have wrongly applied the test prescribed for transaction entered into by illiterate : Parda Nasheen" ladies to the documents in question.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records with the assistance of the learned counsel. Copy of the agreement dated 24-8-1989 is Ex.P.l while the receipt is Ex.P.2. The agreement purports to bear thumb-impression of the three respondents. It is attested by Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Ibrahim, Ghulam Yasin and Fateh Muhammad while the receipt purports to bear thumb- impression of Muhammad Tufail and. The'Signatures of Shamshad Ali, respondent and is attested by said Muhammad Amin, Ghulam Yasin and Mehboob. Muhammad Amin appeared as P.W.2 while Fateh Muhammad appeared as P.W.3. None of these two witnesses have sated that any of the respondents put their thumb impression on the agreement Exh.P-1 or the receipt Ex.P-2 in his presence. They simply stated hat they are the witnesses and their thumb impression are present on the documents. Similar is the case with Mehboob Ahmad son of Allah Yar, P.W.4 who is witness of Exh.Pr2. P.W.5 is Abdul Jabbar, a scribe, who has given a very strange statement. According to him, the documents Ex.P-1 and Exh. P-2 were written by Murhtaz Shah but are signed and stamped by him. As to the reason for the said rather extraordinary procedure, there is no explanation. None of these documents have been entered into any register.
4. Learned Courts below have very correctly observed that in the first instance there is no evidence of execution of the documents by the respondents within the meaning of law or even in fact and in the second there is no evidence that the documents were read over to the respondents including an old and admittedly "Parda Nasheen"' lady, particularly so when P.W.2 has stated that the lady came long after the documents have been scribed and she came of herself to the Courts and managed to find the witnesses there. C.R. Accordingly is dismissed in limine.