' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide C.R. No,1972 of 1998 and C.R.No,253 of 1999 as common questions are involved and these were ordered to be heard together.
2. On 28-6-1989 the petitioners herein filed two suits respectively for specific performance of the following oral agreements stated to have been entered into with them by Capt. Hafeez Ullah the deceased-defendant No,1
(i) C.R.No,1972/98.
' For sale of land measuring 8 Kanals for a consideration of Rs,24,000 out of which Rs,20,000 were paid as earnest on 20-9-1988.
(ii) C.R.No,253/99.
' For sale of land measuring 4 Kanals for a consideration of Rs,22,000 out of which Rs,20,000 were paid as earnest on 25-8-1988.
' It was stated in the plaints that because of mutual confidence the agreements were not recorded in writing. It was complained that instead of transferring the land to the petitioner after getting sanction for the G.H.Q. The said Capt. Hafeez Ullah proceeded to sell the land to the respondents Nos.2 to 5 by means of registered sale-deed dated 24-6-1989. The suits were resisted by the respondents. The said deceased defendant No,1 denied having entered into any agreements with the petitioners or to have received any money from them. The sale in favour of the respondents Nos.2 to 5 for consideration was affirmed. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suits on 28-2-1993. First appeals filed by the petitioners in the two cases were dismissed by a learned ADJ, Kasur, on 12-11-1998.
3. Syed Muhammad Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid, Advocate/learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the evidence on record has been mis - read in both these cases by the learned Courts below. He particularly refers to document Exh.P.7. Nobody has turned up for the respondents.
4. I have gone through the copies of the records. I may note here that barring the two petitioners the evidence both oral as well as documentary is the same in both the cases. The denial of the oral agreements was reiterated in the witness box by Dr. Rashid, the attorney of the deceased defendant No, 1 . On the other hand, the petitioners and their witnesses Akbar Ali PW-2 and Muhammad Sharif P.W.3 gave statements regarding the oral transactions. I have examined the same and do find that the learned ADJ has very correctly read the evidence. It is apparent on a plain reading of the evidence that whereas the two petitioners stated that the matters were settled with the said deceased defendant No,1 Hafeez Ullah and the amounts were paid to him, Akbar Ali P.W.2 who was stated to be present by all concerned stated that it was Mushi Suleman with whom the matters were settled and the money was also paid to him. So far as Muhammad Sharif P.W.3 is concerned, he admitted that he saw Hafeez Ullah for the first and last time on the said day when the agreements were entered into.
5. There is no evidence whatsoever of any agreement in both these cases. So far as Exh.P.7 is concerned, this is the sanction letter issued by the GHQ Army and it does bear the name of both the petitioners. The said attorney of the deceased defendant No,1 was confronted and he explained that the deceased had obtained the sanction in the names of several persons and he intended to sell his land to the person who gave him the highest offer and since the offer of the respondents Nos.2 to 5 was the highest, the land was sold to them by means of the registered documents upon receipt of consideration. This explanation of the said witness (PW-1) is quite plausible. Exh.P.7 does show that sanction was obtained for sale of land to as many as 15 persons including both the petitioners and the said vendees. Besides, as noted by me above, the case as pleaded by the petitioner had not been proved on record.
6. At this stage, learned counsel argued that, admittedly, the possession is with the petitioners. This may be so but both the petitioners in their respective statements as P.W.1 in both the cases have stated that they were cultivating the land on payment of produce share at the time the agreement was entered into. The petitioners being, admittedly, tenants in the land the said possession would be of no help to them. No other point has been urged. Both the civil revisions are dismissed but without any orders as to cost.