' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---This R,S.A. Is directed against the judgment dated 23-2-2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby appeal brought by appellants against the judgment and decree dated 31-10-1996 passed by learned Civil Judge, Lahore was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that Ch. Muhammad Arshad, respondent No,1 filed suit for recovery of Rs,18,00,000 (Rs,9,00,000 as earnest money and Rs,9,00,000 as compensation) against the appellants and respondents Nos.2 to 6 and stated that respondents Nos.2 to 6 were owners of land measuring 486 Kanals and 4 Marlas situated in village Sarhali Kalan Tehsil and District Kasur and they agreed to sell the same in his favour for a consideration of Rs,21,00,000 and he paid them Rs,9,00,000 as earnest money. The plaintiff/respondent further stated that respondents Nos.2 to 6 had to execute sale deed after receiving balance amount (Rs,12,00,000) but later on respondents Nos.2 to 6 agreed to sell land in question in favour of appellants and attempted to defraud him (plaintiff). The plaintiff asserted that he came to know about the said bargain and respondents Nos.2 to 6 agreed to return his amount (Rs,9,00,000) through appellants and in this regard they (appellants) executed agreement dated 12-12-1989.
According to terms and conditions of said agreement within one year of registration of sale deed in favour of appellants the plaintiff was bound to get possession of whole and deliver the same to appellants and they promised to pay Rs,9,00,000 to plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff stated that appellants used delaying tactics and registered sale deed was executed in their favour on 19-6- 1991 but they failed to pay him Rs,9,00,000 despite the fact that they had obtained possession of whole land, therefore, he was constrained to file the suit. The defendants/appellants filed written statement. The remaining defendants filed separate written statement and on the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--- Issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD Nos.1 and 2.
(2) Whether the alleged agreement dated 12-12-1989 was illegal, void and meant to blackmail the defendants? OPD Nos.1 and 2.
(3) Whether the suit is barred under the principle of res judicata? OPD Nos.1 and 2.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit by his act and conduct? OPD Nos.1 and 2.
(5) Whether the plaintiff has not come to this Court with clean hands? OPD Nos.1 and 2.
(6) Whether the suit is frivolous and the defendants Nos.1 and 2. Are entitled to special costs under section 35A of C.P.C.? OPD Nos.1 and 2.
(7) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter? OPD Nos.3 to 7.
(8) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD Nos.3 to 7.
(9) Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation? OPD Nos.3 to 7.
(10) Whether the suit is barred under the principle of res judicata? OPD Nos.3 to 7.
(11) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit? OPD No,3 to 7.
(12) Whether the plaintiff has not come to this Court with clean hands? OPD Nos.3 to 7.
(13) Whether the suit is frivolous and the defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35A of C.P.C.? OPD Nos.3 to 7.
(13A) Whether the plaint is to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.? OPD Nos.1 and 2.
(14) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs,18,00,000 as prayed in the plaint? OPP.
(15) Relief.
' Learned trial Court recorded evidence and decreed the suit brought by respondent No,1 against appellate to the extent of Rs,9,00,000 vide judgment dated 31-10-1996. The appellants filed appeal there against which was dismissed vide judgment dated 23-2-2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. Hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above Ch Muhammad Arshad, respondent No,1 had filed suit for recovery of Rs,18,00,000 against the appellants and respondents Nos.2 to 6. The case of respondent is that respondents Nos. 2 to 6 were owners of land in question and they had agreed to sell the same in his favour and also received Rs,9,00,000 from him as earnest money. However, later on, respondents Nos.2 to 6 agreed to sell suit land in favour of appellants but he (respondent No,1) raised objection whereupon appellants agreed to pay him Rs,9,00,000 (already paid by him to respondents Nos.2 to 6 as earnest money) and in this regard appellants executed agreement dated 12-12-1989 in his favour. On the other hand ease of appellants is that according to agreement dated 12-12-1989 respondent/plaintiff had to deliver possession to appellants but he failed to do so, therefore, he was not entitled to get aforesaid amount (Rs,9,00,000) from them.
Sajjad Haider, appellant while appearing as D.W.1 admitted that agreement dated 12-12-1989 (Exh.P.1) bears his signature and thumb impression. He also identified the signature of his brother (appellant No,2) as Exh.P.1/2. The defendant/appellant also admitted that they had signed Exh.P.1 after it had been duly scribed. He admitted that they had initiated proceedings against Sana Ullah, Munshi under section 188, P.P.C. So it is clear that appellants had executed agreement dated 12-12- 1989 (Exh.P.1) in favour of plaintiff. According to said agreement the appellants had to pay him Rs,9,00,000 but they failed to pay the ,same. Maqsood Ahmad and Muhammad Asghar (Marginal witnesses of Exh.P.1) appeared as P.W.3 and P. W.2 and they have fully supported the case of plaintiff/respondent. So plaintiff is entitled to get Rs,9,00,000 from the defendant/ appellants. As stated earlier the case of appellants is that plaintiff had not delivered them possession as per agreement, Exh.P.1. However D.W.2 and D.W.3 admitted during cross-examination that Sana Ullah, Munshi is tenant of defendants/ appellants. So I find that claim of appellants is baseless. As such learned trial Court had rightly decreed the suit brought by respondent No,
1. The appellants had challenged the finding of trial Court on issue No,14 only and learned Additional District Judge has affirmed the findings on this issue vide judgment dated 23-2-2004. It is well-reasoned judgment.
So in the circumstances of the case, I find that learned Additional District. Judge has rightly dismissed the appeal brought by appellants. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore, there is no justification to set aside the same.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.