' QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.---Muhammad Ummer Khan, petitioner, has moved this revision petition against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Distinct Judge-VII, Abbottabad, whereby, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal No 51/13 on 8.2.2011 and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge-VI, Abbottabad, dismissing Suit No, 337/1 on 15.5.2010, lodged by the petitioner against the respondent, Khan Bahadur, for declaration, possession of property described in the plaint on the basis of registered agreement deed dated 20.2.1999, and perpetual injunction.
2. The background of the case, furnished in the revision petition, would show that on the charge of murder of four family members of the petitioner/plaintiff, FIR was lodged against respondent/defendant in Police Station Sherwan. The respondent/defendant was arrested in the case but on the intervention of the elders of the locality, the parties arrived at compromise and a compromise deed was executed on 10.11.1999, whereby respondent/defendant undertook not to come to-village Toora Qillan during his life-time or else he would transfer his property and his land mentioned in the deed, in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. However, after his acquittal and release from jail, the respondent/defendant violated terms of the compromise deed and returned to the village and started living there, whereupon the petitioner/ plaintiff lodged the suit, which was contested by respondent/ defendant, and after framing of issues and recording of evidence, the suit was dismissed, and appeal of the petitioner/ plaintiff also met the same fate.
3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.
4. It may be observed at the outset that the condition imposed on the respondent/defendant in the registered compromise deed was not enforceable in law, as no condition, as such, could be imposed on the respondent/defendant against his right of free movement and taking abode guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, notwithstanding the fact that the compromise deed carries element of undue influence, when the respondent/defendant was confined in jail facing murder charge and had no other choice. Therefore, the compromise deed cannot be held to be based on free will of the respondent/defendant. Furthermore, evidence recorded in the case would reveal that the respondent/defendant adequately compensated the aggrieved party by paying handsome amount to the legal heirs of the deceased, and had undergone rigorous imprisonment for ten years in addition to payment of compensation. It was, therefore, no surprise when this consideration prevailed with the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, while deciding the suit and appeal, respectively.
5. As such, there is nothing in the concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court to warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs.
Concurrent Judgments Upheld/ Revision