' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.-This second appeal arises out of a judgment and decree, dated 24-3-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, accepting appeal of the respondents and dismissing appellant's suit for specific performance, which had been decreed by the learned trial Court through its judgment and decree, dated 28-1-1993.
2. Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 2-10-1983 regarding land measuring 15 Kanals, 17 Marlas, Khata No,23 Square No,88, situated in Chak No,217/RB Faisalabad appellant claimed that Zahoor Ahmed, owner Of the land entered into an agreement to sell his land in his favour for an amount of Rs, 1,50,000 and at the time of execution of agreement received Rs, 70,000 as earnest money and delivered the possession of the land in question over to him. Appellant further claimed that after execution of agreement to sell in his favour Zahoor Ahmed received the. Remaining sale price of Rs,80,000 on 9-12-1983 through a written receipt. Appellant also pleaded that during the currency of the agreement to sell in his favour, respondent No,l (Zahoor Ahmed) sold away the land subject of his agreement to sell in favour of respondents Nos.2 and 3 vide Mutation of sale No, 1313. He asserted that subsequent purchasers namely respondents Nos.2 and 3 were aware of the agreement in his favour and thus transaction, being in violation of the contract between the appellant and respondent No,l, was liable to be cancelled. Respondents Nos.2 and ,3 further alienated the disputed land in favour of respondent No, 4 by means of a registered sale-deed, dated 19-11-1986 which was executed pending the suit before the trial Court.
3. Respondents Nos.l to 3, who were defendants in the suit contested the same by filing a joint written statement, wherein they controverted the allegations in the plaint and raised certain preliminary objections like lack of locus standi and cause of action etc.
4. The learned trial court framed as many as eight issues arising out of opposing pleadings of the parties and required the parties to produce their evidence in support of their respective stances.
The learned trial Court, after due appraisal of the evidence on the file on 28-1-1993 decreed the suit of the appellant with costs.
5. Respondent No,4 being the final transferee of the land pending suit before the trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, which was taken up by an Additional District Judge on 24-3-1996 who accepted it, setting aside judgment and decree of the tr,ial Court, dismissed the suit of respondent No, 1 with costs throughout.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that judgment of the First Appellate Court is unnecessarily at variance to that of the learned trial Court, as in spite of finding by it that the appellant has proved execution of the agreement to sell, dated 2-10-1983 opted to compare ink of the signatures over agreement (Exh.P.l) and receipt (Exh.P.3) and gave incorrect finding that signatures being with one ink, these documents were prepared at one time and thus were forged. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant through evidence had proved due execution of the agreement to sell and receipt and thus his suit could not be'dismissed.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has rebutted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has supported the judgment given by the learned Additional District Judge. He prays for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the same is not maintainable, as it involves no law point.
' I have given a careful thought to the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the entire evidence on the file. Undeniably, both the Courts below have concurrently returned the findings that the appellant has proved execution of agreement to sell, B dated 2-10-1983 (Exh.P.l), receipt, dated 2-10-1983 (Exh.P.2) and receipt, dated 9-12-1983 (Exh.P.3) by producing marginal witnesses and scribe of those documents. P.W.l. Muhammad Sharif and P.W.2 Nawab Din are the attesting witnesses of the agreement to sell, dated 2-10-1983 (Exh.P. 1) and receipt, dated 2-10-1983 (Exh.P.2). They have categorically stated that these documents were signed and thumb marked by respondent No,l. These two P.Ws. Are also the attesting witnesses, of the receipt, dated 9-12-1983 (Exh.P.3) through which the remaining sale price of Rs,80,000 was paid to respondent No,l with regard to this receipt, they have unanimously deposed that the amount was paid apd the receipt was executed, by respondent No,l. These witnesses have also stated that bargain of sale was settled in their presence. These witnesses are quite independent and are not inimical towards the respondents, thus had no reason to falseiy depose against them. Appellant also examined the petition writer, who scribe the agreement and the two receipts, as P.W.3. This witness has also supported the case of the appellant, who himself appeared as P.W.
4. From this evidence, it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that respondent No,l entered into an agreement to sell with the appellant and received the entire consideration through duly executed receipts by him (Exh.P.2) and (Exh.P.3). I am satisfied that findings of the learned trial Court are quite just and in accord with the evidence on the file and it was rightly held by it that.
Documents Exh.P.l to Exh.P.3 have been proved to have been executed by respondent No,l.
9. Now the learned Additional District Judge in order to meet these findings of the learned trial Court opted to compare ink used for thumb-impressions and' signatures over all these three documents and concluded that thumb- impressions on these three documents and signatures thereon, have been done with same ink, which proves that all these three documents were prepared at one and the same time,, whereas according to the appellant, agreement to sell (Exh.P.l) and receipt (Exh.P.2) were executed on 2-10-1983 and the second receipt (Exh. P, 3) was executed on 9-12-1983 after lapse of almost two months. In order to verify the proprietary of these findings of the learned First Appellate Court, original record of the learned trial Court was requisitioned and I therefrom have myself compared ink of thumb impressions on Exh.P.l and those on Exh.P.3 and have also compared ink of the signatures over Exh.P.l with ink of the signatures over Exh.P.3 and find that those are not in the same ink so I am unable to agree with the findings given by the learned First' Appellate Court regarding nature of these documents that those are forged.
Had the ink on both these documents been same, I fail to understand how the same ink raises a presumption that these documents were forged, having been prepared at one time, especially when the intervening period between both these documents is only two months. It is quite possible that a person signing with one ink/pen at one time may also sign after two months with the same pen. Above all, in presence of overwhelming evidence as discussed above, showing due execution of these documents by respondent No, 1, finding of the First Appellate Court are just a cock and bull story and has no substance in it. I accordingly strike down findings of the First Appellate Court on issues Nos. 5 and 6, whereunder documents Exh.P.l to Exh.P.3 have been said to be forged.
10. For what has been said above, l am of the considered view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is more near to law and evidence on the file, which gives more plausible reasons in support of due execution of Exh.P.l to Exh.P.3. I accordingly set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and uphold the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, dated 28-1-1993.
' Resultantly, suit of the appellant, stands decreed against the respondents, with costs throughout.