' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This direct appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 19-10-2005 passed by the Lahore High Court in civil revision arising out of the suit for specific performance of contract.
2. The suit was filed by the appellant on the basis of an agreement to sell, entered with the respondent his real sister in respect of the land measuring 15 Kanals of her share in the ancestral property for a consideration of Rs,1,05,000. The respondent contested the suit and without denying her signature on the agreement, denied to have entered into the transaction of sale. The learned trial Judge in the light of pleading of the parties and the evidence brought by them on record dismissed the suit but in appeal filed by the appellant, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mianwali reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit. The High Court in civil revision filed by the respondents having undertaken the exercise of examination of record in detail set aside the judgment of the Appellant Court with the observation that the execution of the power of attorney and agreement to sell, was not proved in accordance with law and payment of sale consideration was also not proved to enforce the agreement and maintain the suit for specific performance of the contract.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Mst. Mehr-un-Nisa, respondent herein having admitted her signature on the agreement to sell and power of attorney has admitted the execution of these documents and the payment of sale consideration having been acknowledged in the agreement was also proved but the High Court by misreading the evidence wrongly reversed the findings of the Appellate Court on the pure question of fact in the civil revision. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, has submitted that Saifullah a marginal witness of the agreement to sell and attorney of Mst. Mehr-in-Nisa were examined by the appellant as his star-witness, but he has categorically stated that at the time of execution of agreement to sell, the sale consideration was not paid to Mst. Mehr-un-Nisa and as per his information no such payment was even subsequently made.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance, we have not been able to find out any substantial error in the judgment of the High Court calling for interference of this Court. This is an admitted fact that only one marginal witness to the agreement to sell was produced and he also did not support the claim of the appellant regarding payment of sale consideration in his presence as was mentioned in the agreement therefore, the assertion of the respondent that her signature on the agreement were obtained deceitfully would be sufficiently supported by the evidence on the record. The genuineness of the agreement and the transaction of sale was not proved as per requirement of Article 17 read with Article 15 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984 and this is settled law that relief of specific performance cannot be granted unless the execution of sale agreement as per requirement of law and payment of sale consideration in part or full is proved. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any material defect or legal infirmity in the judgment under challenge. In the light of foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.