' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 19.4.201.2 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the Civil Revision filed by petitioners against concurrent findings of the two Courts below has been dismissed.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 and 4. It was pleaded in the plaint that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) are old aged and parda observing ladies and Dakheelkars of land khewat Nos. 71 and 72 along-with the petitioners (defendants). They entered into a sale agreement with the petitioner No, 1 and respondent No, 3 for sale of landed property, fully described in para-3 of the plaint, for a consideration of Rs, 3,75,000/- out of which they received 1,85,000/- in cash. It was stipulated in the agreement that on payment of remaining price of land amounting to Rs, 1,90,000, they would transfer the land in their favour. It was further pleaded that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 (defendants Nos. 2 and 3) under the garb of getting permission of section 19 of the Colonization of Lands Act, with fraud and collusion, obtained a General Power of Attorney No, 0197, dated 15.10.1997 from them. The respondents Nos. r and 2 claimed that after getting approval of section 19 of the Colonization of Govt. Lands Act, 1912, the petitioner No, 1, by playing fraud, had transferred the land in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, his real sons and respondent No,
3. It was further pleaded that the petitioner No,.1 had not paid a single penny to them and that the earnest money was also paid by the respondent No, 3 (defendant No, 5). It was prayed that mutation No, 491, dated 13.12.1997 is against law, fact and based on fraud and forgery, therefore, inoperative upon the rights of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, and liable to be set aside.
3. The suit was resisted by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to 3 by filing written statement, inter alia, on the ground that petitioner No, 1 transferred the land in the name of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 with the consent of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) and that he had paid Rs, 1,90,000/- out of his own pocket. The respondent No, 3 (defendant No, 5) filed written statement conceding the contents of the plaint. On the divergent pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed necessary ,issues and recorded evidence of the parties and decreed the suit reverting mutation No 491, dated 13.12.1997 while upholding the transaction in favour of respondent No, 3 (defendant No 5). The petitioners filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Okara, which appeal was dismissed against which the petitioners filed Civil Revision No, 2058 of 2005 which too met the same fate, vide impugned judgment dated 19.4.2012. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned judgment as well as the judgments of the two Courts below were against law inasmuch as the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners was -discarded. He next contended that the Courts below have erred in law by believing the part of the documents. He further contended that the admission of the respondent No, 1 that she has received Rs, 1,85,000/- towards part payment of the sale itself substantiates the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has supported the impugned judgment.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is not disputed that the respondents Nos. 1 .And 2 were parda observing 'ladies. Mst. Zainab in her evidence before the Court has conceded to have received Rs: 1,85,000/- as part payment towards proposed sale of the land in dispute from Ghulam Muhammad, the respondent No,
3. She, however, has denied to have received any amount from the petitioner No,
1. The arrangement between the parties was that the ;agreed sale consideration would be paid to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 prior to approaching the revenue authorities under section 19 for transfer of the property in dispute in favour of the petitioners and respondent No,
3. No material has been brought on record by the petitioner No, 1 to establish that he has paid a single penny to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before recording mutation in favour of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and respondent NO.
5. The execution of the documents, which was denied by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, was subject to the condition of entire payment agreed between the parties, which having not been done, the documents were without consideration. The Trial Court and the first Appellate Court have discussed in detail the evidence produced by the parties Mad have come to the correct conclusion.
7. We do not find any substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners to take a different view in the given circumstances. This petition, for the aforesaid reasons, is dismissed and . We, however, direct the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to deposit a sum of Rs, 1,85,000/-, with the Trial Court, which was received by the respondent No, 1 from the respondent No, 3 Ghulam Muhammad, within a period of one month of date of this judgment whereafter the Trial Court after hearing the parties, shall pass appropriate order for return of money. High Court Judgment Upheld/.