' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.--- Impugned herein are the concurrent findings of the two courts below, whereby the application of petitioners for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed.
Hence present revision.
2. The petitioners brought a suit against fhe respondents for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of agreement deeds dated 10-9-2003 and 13-4-2006.
The petitioners along with the suit, also filed an application for temporary injunction thereby asked for restraining the respondents not to transfer/alienate the suit property through certain mutations pending for attestation of the Revenue Officer. The application was contested by the respondents.
The learned trial Court dismissed the same and the appeal of petitioners was also dismissed by the appellate Court.
3. The petitioners and respondents both have filed C.Ms. Nos.576 of 2001 and 556 of 2011 respectively, for placing on record the annexed documents as part and parcel of the record of instant petition. The documents annexed therewith relate to a litigation taken place between one Gul Shahbaz and the respondents herein with regard to the same property. Keeping in view the relevance of such documents for just and proper disposal of the instant petition, both the C.Ms. Are allowed accordingly.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in spite of a prima facie case in favour of petitioners; temporary injunction was refused in their favour. Such a refusal could be the reason for irreparable loss to the petitioners. So, the balance of convenience lies in favour of petitioners.
6. As against that, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on one hand the suit of petitioners for declaration is not maintainable, being based on agreement to sell, and on the other hand, the said agreements being unregistered, no prima facie case appears to be existed in their favour. The learned Courts below have rightly turned down their request for grant of temporary injunction.
6-A. The learned counsel for the parties were heard and record of the case was perused.
7. The record of the case would reveal that the petitioners' case is based on the two unregistered agreement deeds, whereby they have allegedly purchased the shares of respondents in the suit property. The respondents' have, however, denied the execution of such agreements and stated to be fabricated and false one. As per additional documents placed on file, Gul Shahbaz Khan etc. Had filed a declaratory suit against the respondents with regard to the same khasra numbers on the ground that the respondents had made an exchange of their lands with the lands of plaintiffs.
Though, the suit was dismissed but during pendency of appeal, the matter was compromised through arbitration between the parties and statement of attorney of respondents was recorded in this regard. However, for some legal flaw, the statement of attorney was not accepted and the appeal was dismissed but with observations that the respondents if desire to transfer their land in favour of appellant, they may transfer their recorded shares in the Revenue Record by way of mutation without the intervention of the Court. The respondents in their reply have taken the stance that in view of above compromise and decision; they have entered the alleged mutations in the names of Gul Shahbaz Khan etc. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitiohers have failed to establish the existence of a prima facie case in their favour. 1t is well- settled that an unregistered document, which under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 is required to be registered, cannot confer title on a party to immovable property. Moreover, the question of maintainability of the declaratory suit is also yet to be determined. Hence, the petitioners' case sans essential ingredients for the grant of temporary injunction; no valid exception could be taken to the well-reasoned orders of the Courts below.
8. So, in this view of the matter, this civil revision, being meritless, is dismissed as such along with C.M. No,287 of 2011, with no order as to costs.