' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---This civil revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-4-2009 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Khushab, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 26-4-2007 passed by Civil Judge, Khushab.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the plaint are that respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement against the petitioners on the ground that the suit-land fully described in the plaint measuring 80 kanals sold to respondent for a total consideration of Rs,33,000. The respondent paid Rs,18,000 on account of earnest money to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners: An agreement to sell was also reduced in writing on 14-10-1978 in which it was mutually agreed that the petitioners will transfer the suit-land in favour of respondent after obtaining proprietary rights, but after the death of predecessor-ininterest of petitioners, the petitioners have refused to perform their part of agreement and to execute sale-deed.
3. The suit was resisted by the petitioners/defendants who denied the execution of agreement to sell. Learned Civil Judge after framing of issues and recording of oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of respondent on 26-4-2007. The petitioners tiled an appeal which was also dismissed on 28-4-2009 by the learned Addl. District Judge, Khushab, hence this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are against the law and facts. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners never executed agreement to sell with the respondent because the agreement to sell Exh.P1 produced by the respondent, does not bear the signature or thump impression of Muhammad Jamil, deceased father and grand father of petitioners. According to the contents of plaint; the agreement to sell was executed on 14-10-1978 when the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement after lapse of 23 years which is otherwise barred by limitation.
Therefore, civil revision be allowed impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below be set aside and the suit of respondent be dismissed with cost throughout.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed this civil revision and has contended that there is concurrent findings of two courts below. According to the agreement to sell, the parties mutually agreed that petitioners will transfer the suit land in favour of respondent alter they get proprietary rights of the suit-land. The contents of civil revision are misconceived, it be dismissed.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The suit-land is 80 kanals agricultural land. According to the contents of plaint, Muhammad Jamil, the deceased father and grand lather of petitioners executed agreement to sell Exh.P1 with respondent on 14-10-1978 with an undertaking that he will transfer the suit-land in favour of respondent after obtaining proprietary rights.
8. According to the agreement to sell, the suit-land was sold for a total consideration of Rs,33,000, while the respondent paid Rs,18,000 on account of earnest money. Record reveals that the .Proprietary rights were granted to allottee Muhammad Jamil on 12-7-1987 which were further incorporated in the Revenue Record vide Mutation No,231 dated 30-11-1999. Muhammad Jamil remained alive till 1990, but during the life time of Muhammad Jamil, the respondent never filed a suit for specific agreement against him nor served him with legal notice for the transfer of suit-land in his favour. The instant suit for specific performance of agreement was filed on 13-12-2001 which is badly barred by limitation and the respondent could not explain inordinate and unexplained delay of 23 years in filing the suit for specific performance of agreement. Particularly when the proprietary rights were awarded to said Muhammad Jamil in the year 1987 who died in the year, 1999.
9. The second important issue pertains to the possession. Admittedly the respondent is not in possession of suit-land. Copies of Register Khasra Girdawri annexed by the parties reveal that it is the petitioners who are in possession of the suit-land and prior to them the name of Muhammad Jamil, the deceased was incorporated in the relevant columns of Register Khsara Girdawri, Exh.P6 which is copy of F.I.R. Lodged by Muhammad Sattar respondent against the petitioners further corroborates the possession of the petitioners on the suit-land.
10. Further about the status of Exh.P1 (agreement to sell) it is pertinent to mention here that on perusal of Exh.P1 it was highlighted that +agreement to sell was not signed by Muhammad Jamil, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, therefore, unless and until an agreement is signed by both the parties, it does not create any right or liability in favour of the parties and where the, vendee does not sign any agreement, it means that he has not agreed with the terms and conditions of agreement and neither he has consented with the terms and conditions of the agreement nor he is a party. A party to an agreement to sell could only be presumed when lie signs an agreement. Therefore, the respondent can neither derive any advantage against Muhammad Jamil nor can seek the specific performance of an agreement which is not duly signed by the vendor and does not fall in the definition of concluded contract. Reliance is placed on the law laid down in case reported as -"2010 SCM R 334". Though the respondent produced documentary evidence Exh.Pl to Exh.P12 but these documents could not sufficiently supported the version of respondent.
11. As a result of above discussion, it is evident from the record that both the learned courts below have erred while decreeing the suit of respondent. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. This civil revision in accepted, impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are set aside and the suit of respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.