' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed a suit for specific performance against the predecessor-ininterest of the present respondents in respect of the suit property. The suit was resisted by the respondent Miraj Din, he filed a written statement, of the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues , were framed, they were put to trial and thereafter the suit dismissed. Aggrieved therefore, an appeal was filed, this too, was dismissed. Hence this second appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that evidence has not been perused properly concurrently by both Courts below, the impugned judgment is not in consonance with the provisions of law as issue-wise findings have not been given by the learned lower Appellate Court, there absolutely is no discussion of the evidence tendered by the parties qua the relationship they had, thus the judgment is not proper, therefore, the same be set aside. As far as the judgment of the trial Court is concerned, it is also not in consonance with the evidence tendered, as it was not properly appraised.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that there are concurrent judgments of two Courts below in his favour, the veracity of the claim of the plaintiff was disputed by the plaintiff's own witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 and Exh.P.1, in fact they supported the view point of the respondents, therefore, the impugned judgments are un-exceptionable. To ,fortify his contentions, he relied on "Mst. Roshi and others v. Mst. Fateh and others" 1982 SCM R 542.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree as well as the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
5. The controversy in the matter stands narrowed down by the parties and their witnesses to the execution or otherwise of Exh.P.1. The trial Court meticulously appraised the evidence of the P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and held that there were material discrepancies and contradictions in the same and it therefore, was not believed. Contrarily the evidence produced in rebuttal by the defendants, was of much better quality, the defendants rebutted the assertions of the plaintiffs, D.Ws.2 and 3 fully supported the viewpoint of the defendants. Therefore, there is preponderance of evidence to support the cause of the defendants/ respondents. The findings of both Courts below are thus an un-exceptionable on merits.
6. As far as the question of the adjudication and decision and each and every issue is concerned, the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court confined the controversy to issue No,6, which was not objected to either party thus, they fulfilled the parameters of judgment as required by law, there absolutely is no irregularity in this context.
7. Lastly, this is a second appeal and limited only to grounds contained in section 100 of C.P.C., no anomaly in this context has been pointed out by the appellant. Thus on the touchstone of the provisions of section 100 C.P.C., this appeal has no merits and is consequently, dismissed.