SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---Civil Revision 47 of 2009 is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 8-11-2008 through which the learned Additional District Judge Kharian by accepting the appeal preferred by respondent set aside the judgment/decree dated 30-5-2006 of the Civil Judge Kharian and decreed the suit.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are that Muhammad Sharif, hereinafter to be referred as plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for the specific performance initially against petitioners 1 to 7 on the basis of two separate agreements to sell, first of which apparently was executed by petitioners 1 to 3 qua their share in the property in dispute i,e,, the land measuring 19 Kanal and 15 Marlas, and the consideration agreed between the parties was Rs,80,000 whereas, petitioners 4 to 7 allegedly executed an agreement to sell with regard to their share in the property for a sum of Rs,20,000. Registered general power of attorneys were also executed by petitioners 1 to 7 in favour of respondent. Apparently at the time of the execution of the said agreements to sell, the property stood in the name of the predecessor in interest of petitioners 1 to 7. Subsequently mutation of inheritance was effected by petitioners. Petitioners 1 to 7 contested the suit denying the bargain besides taking various legal objections. It was their case that the power of attorneys were executed only for purposes of effecting the mutation of inheritance and no bargain had been struck inter se the parties. During the pendency of the suit, petitioners 1 to 7 transferred the property in dispute in favour of petitioners 8 to 13 who were impleaded as parties in the suit.
3. Upon divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence was led by the parties, where after, the trial Court seized of the matter dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-2006. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal which was accepted by the learned Judge of the first appellate Court by means of judgment and decree impugned dated 8-11-2008.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent who appears in person and have minutely examined the record appended with this petition. General power of attorneys are admitted documents and have been proved in evidence. Agreements to sell are also on record as Exhs.P1 and P2 which were proved in evidence by the respondent who entered the witness box as P.W.1 and also deposed about the payment of consideration. Both the agreements were scribed by an Advocate who too appeared in the witness box as P.W.2. Besides, one of the marginal witnesses also entered the witness box to prove the document as P.W.3.. Apparently, the second attesting witness as per evidence on record had passed away. Both the agreements to sell are notarized and the Advocate/Notary Public also entered the witness box to prove the documents. The concerned stamp vendor also appeared as a witness along with the original record. Depositions made by the aforesaid witnesses remained consistent and unshaken during their cross- examination. In these circumstances, the learned Judge of the first appellate court held and rightly so that the agreements to sell in question had been validly executed and proved in evidence. The- property in dispute having not been described in detail in the said agreements to sell, which fact had weighed heavily with the trial Court. In this context, suffice to add that it stands proved in evidence and not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners at bar that the petitioners 1 to 13 owned no other property in the area in question which has been mentioned in the agreement to sell. So as a matter of fact there is no dispute regarding identification of the property subject matter of lis. At the time of the execution of the agreement to 'sell, the property stood in the name of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners 1 to 7 who had admittedly passed away. This factor has also been taken into consideration by the trial Court while deciding the matter against the respondent/ plaintiff. Admittedly the parties are muslim, and upon the death of their predecessor in interest, the property automatically stood devolved on to the legal heirs. In this view of the matter, petitioners 1 to 7 had become the owners and were entitled in law to enter into an agreement to sell in favour of the respondent. Mutation of inheritance merely records a pre existing fact and its absence does not denude the agreement of its validity. There is some ,issue regarding the market value of the property in dispute. It is settled law that inadequacy of consideration, if any, does not affect the validity of an agreement to sell which stands proved in evidence and there was no legal or factual impediment in its specific performance. Findings of the first appellate court on the crucial issues prevalent in the captioned petition are based on fair scrutiny and proper appraisal of documentary as well as oral evidence. The conclusions drawn by the learned Judge of the first appellate court are unexceptionable and calls for no interference. No misreading and non- reading of evidence or any illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner so as to persuade this court to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. Consequently, this Civil Revision being devoid of any merit is dismissed' accordingly.