' TARIQ JAVAID, J.---This revision assails the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the Courts below while rendering judgment dated 12-9-2001 by the learned Civil Judge, Jaranwala and judgment dated 24-4-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaranwala.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the impugned judgments suffer from material irregularities and that the Courts below have failed to apply judicial mind to the facts of the case. .
3. It is argued that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent had entered into an agreement for the sale of 21 kanals 8 marlas of land comprising of Square No,15, Killas Nos.19, 20 and 21/1, Khawet No,114491, Khtauni No,2080, jamabandi 1988-1989, situated at Village Nasrali Chak No,127 GB, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad. The consideration was Rs,75,000 out of which Rs,45,000 were paid to the predecessor-in-interest of the, respondents Nos.1 to 7 and 8 to 8-B. It is also alleged that written agreement dated 17-3-1977 was got executed. Allegedly another sum of Rs,20,000 was paid to the vendors on 5-5-1977 and the time for execution of the sale-deed was extended until 30-6-1977. It is maintained that the execution of the sale-deed was postponed by the respondents on one pretext or the other and finally on 22-11-1986 another agreement was got executed from the vendors. However, the respondents again failed to get the sale-deed registered, hence a suit was filed on 27-7-1993, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 16- l0-2001. The appeal also met the same fate.
4. The perusal of the testimony of the witnesses, does not show that the petitioner/plaintiff could prove lawful execution of the impugned agreements to sell. Admittedly, Mst. Umat-ul-Aziz, never executed any sale agreement or receipt for the payment of any of the sums allegedly paid to the vendors. Therefore, to her extent the learned counsel for the petitioner candidly agreed that the petitioner has no case. Regarding liability of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos.1 to 7 the learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. The testimony of the witnesses does not prove the execution of the documents allegedly executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents.
The petitioners have not addressed any argument, before the Courts below or before this Court with regard to the question of limitations. The judgments passed by the Courts below amply show that both the Courts below have discussed the evidence, documentary and oral, in sufficient detail.
The conclusions are fully supported by the evidence on record. The discrepancy in the testimony of witnesses is material. The agreement allegedly executed in 1986 is not proved by the two marginal witnesses. It is also established on record that the stamp paper allegedly purchased by the petitioner had not been issued to the petitioner by the stamp vendor. About a dozen witnesses produced by the petitioner have failed to advance the case of the petitioner. None of the witnesses could show that the possession of the suit property was given to the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioner in part performance of the agreement. In fact it is established on record that Maqsood Ahmad, Special attorney of the predecessor-in-interest is tenant of the respondents. Neither the execution of alleged sale agreements is proved nor the execution of receipts. Even otherwise the witnesses have failed to establish that consideration for the sale of suit property was paid in their presence. The impugned judgments do not suffer from any illegality. The petition is dismissed in limine.