' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 28-9-2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and against the judgment and decree dated 19-11-1998, passed by the Civil Judge, Khairpur Tamiwali whereby the suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff against respondent No.2/the original owner as well as the petitioner/the alleged subsequent purchaser was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff on 30-4-1989 filed a suit for specific performance with regard to the suit property fully described in the head-note of the plaint on the basis of agreement to sell ' dated 1-4-1988 by defendant No.1/Shah Muhammad/the original owner and also challenged the registered sale-deed dated 18-7-1988 in favour of defendant No.2/petitioner. The written statement was filed by the petitioner and contested the suit stating that the suit is collusive one between the plaintiff and defendant No. I. Defendant No.1 also filed written statement wherein it was stated that the plaintiff himself refused to perform the contract. Issues were framed. The learned trial Court invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. Vide judgment and decree dated 19-11-1998 the learned trial Court decreed the suit. The appeal preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.2 was dismissed by the first appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 28-9-2004. Hence, this civil revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is a registered sale-deed dated 18-7-1988 in favour of the petitioner with regard to the suit property whereas the suit was filed on 30-4-1989 and possession of the suit property was with the petitioner. Further states that the respondent collusively filed the stand prepared ante-dated document as agreement to sell and the suit has been filed by defendant No.1 collusively the plaintiff has also filed a collusive written statement.
Submits that the alleged agreement to sell Exh.P.1 has been unilaterally signed by defendant No.1 and it does not bear the signatures of the plaintiff, therefore, this document cannot be termed as an agreement to sell enforceable by law. Further submits that as the agreement was forged and fictitious one, therefore, no stamp vendor or the petition writer was produced and further that only one witness to the agreement was produced, therefore, states that both the courts below fell in error `while ignoring the settled law declared by the superior courts of the country and wrongly granted the decree in favour of respondent No.
1. Relies upon the case of Tahir Hussain Malik v. Mst. Najma Raii (1995 SCM R 1407) to argue that a registered sale-deed has precedence over prior unregistered agreement to sell. Further relies upon the case of Muhammad Idrees and others v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others (2010 SCM R 5) to state that registered document has sanctity attached to it and strong evidence is required to cast 'aspersions on its genuineness. Learned counsel while relying upon the case of Muhammad Ashraf v. Ali'Zaman and others (1992 SCM R 1442) submits that the plaintiff has not discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of an agreement (Exh.P.1) as well as its existence on the date written on this document i.e. 14-4-1988, therefore, failed to establish that the agreement was in the knowledge of the petitioner/defendant No.2 and states that when there was no notice to the petitioner' about the existence of the previous agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff of the suit property when the plaintiff has admitted the possession of the petitioner in his statement, therefore, plaintiff failed to establish right of decree in accordance with section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel, for the respondent has stated that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two courts below, which need not be interfered with by this Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and gone through the record as well as the findings recorded by the two courts below with their able assistance.
6. In my view, performance of an agreement is required by both the parties and if it is unilateral and signed by one party and signatures of the other party is' not available on the said document, the same is not an agreement enforceable under the law. Further in this case only one Witness has been produced and scribe and the stamp vendor have not been produced. These two witnesses are very much important to prove the execution of a document on a specific date as the register of stamp vendor and the petition writer proves the fact of existence of a document on a specific date, especially when there is a dispute that this document (Exh.P.1) has been created after the registration of the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner, only to file the suit against 'the rights of 'the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case the findings recorded by both the courts below ignoring, all these material facts as well as the evidence available on the file are, not sustainable under the law.
7. Forwhat has been discussed above, I accept this civil revision and set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below in the light of the judgments of tie August Supreme Court of Pakistan referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner.