SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J. This civil revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar and the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2015, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar, whereby, suit for specific performance of contract filed by Muhammad Siddique (deceased) through his L.Rs. was dismissed and appeal of the petitioners was also dismissed, respectively.
2. Brief facts for decision of this civil revision are that the respondents entered into an agreement to sell with Muhammad Siddique (deceased), predecessor in interest of the petitioners regarding suit property situated in Walayat Pur, Bahawalnagar in consideration of Rs.95,250/-, after receiving Rs.35,000/- as earnest money, they delivered the possession of the suit property to the petitioners, while the remaining consideration amount was agreed to be paid at the time of sanctioning of mutation. Later on; the respondents with mala fide, refused to perform their part of performance of agreement to sell, so, the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of contract before the civil court, which' suit was contested by the respondents through filing their written statement and the learned civil court dismissed the suit of the petitioners vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.12.2012. Then the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 09.07.2015. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below, preferred this civil revision.
3. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners proved the agreement to sell. All the witnesses of agreement had stated in line regarding the settlement of the agreement, execution of the agreement to sell Ex.P-1, payment of the amount Rs.35,000/- at the time of the execution of Ex.P-1. The possession was delivered by the respondents at the time of execution of the amount and advance payment of the amount. Both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record. Provision of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. have been violated by the court. The learned first appellate court had not discussed the evidence produced by the petitioners nor had given any findings on all the issues. It was argued that the petitioners filed the application before the appellate court for comparison of the thumb mark and signature on Ex. P-1, but the same was turned down by the court. The application was not decided separately, but the court i.e. learned Additional District Judge postpone the decision of the application with the judgment of the appeal.
The judgment is the result of non-reading or misreading of the evidence. The law also has not been appreciated. Furthermore; the learned Additional District Judge has not decided the application for appointment of the guardian of the minors in accordance with law. Therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by both, the courts below are against the legal norms. Both the judgments be set- aside. The suit of the petitioners for specific performance be decreed.
4. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, resisted the arguments and argued that there was a specific denial from the respondents, from the very beginning through written statement that no such agreement was settled between the parties. Infact; the petitioners obtained the land from the respondents on lease and for lease purpose, the said stamp papers were obtained. No amount was ever received by the respondents. The land belongs to the minors whereas, Manqad Hussain was neither appointed the guardian of the minors nor had any authority to enter into agreement with anybody for the land of the minors. infact; he himself not owner of any land therefore, to his extent, even the suit is not maintainable. It was asserted by the counsel for the respondents that the land was given on lease and for that the agreement for lease was written. The petitioners have prepared a forged document regarding the agreement to sell. Counsel argued that so far as the application for comparison of thumb mark and signatures filed by the petitioners before the learned Additional District Judge is concerned; that was not maintainable, as before the learned civil court, where the case remained pending for a long time, the petitioner never had filed such application; And at the appellate stage, no can be allowed to create the evidence in their favour, at that stage. Counsel made reliance on "Muhammad Sadeeq v. Pervaiz Khan and 2 others" (2020 CLC 1582). Counsel argued that the application for additional evidence at the appellate stage can be decided along with the appeal and there is no bar. Counsel in this regard; placed reliance on "Sultan Ali alias Sultan through L.Rs. and others v. Rasheed Ahmad and 45 others" (2005 SCMR 1444). It was argued that additional evidence cannot be allowed to fill the lacuna. Reliance in this regard placed on "Shakoor v. Province of Punjab through Collector and others" (PLD 2013 Lahore 17), It was argued that neither the execution of the document is proved nor ingredients for agreement to sell are proved by the petitioners. There are many contradictions in the statements of PWs regarding the payment of advance amount, regarding purchase of stamp papers and regarding settlement of the agreement to sell. Both the courts below have discussed each and every aspect of the proposition. The petitioners were failed to establish any of their claim. Therefore, the civil revision is not competent, as there is no illegality or irregularity which has been mentioned by the petitioners.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. In this proposition, there are two very legal important points involved;
1. Whether the father being legal guardian, can enter into agreement to sell on behalf of the minors when he has not obtained any certificate of guardian of property of the minors from the court; if not so, whether such agreement to sell if agreed between the parties, is executable?
2. In absence of the receipt for payment of the advance amount, can the execution of document i.e. agreement to sell Ex.P-1 has any independent legal status?
As there was a specific objection by the petitioner that the learned courts below have not followed the provisions of Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C. Before going into the merits of the legal proposition and discussing the evidence of the parties, I would like to refer Order XX, Rule 5, C.P.C. which says that; "In suits in which issues have been framed, the court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons thereof, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit."
7. No doubt; this provision of C.P.C. binds the court to make its finding on all the issues framed, but at the same time; it empowers the court that if the court finds it sufficient that the decision/findings on one or two issues would be sufficient for. the decision of the case, it will not have any effect on the other decided issues. Furthermore; purpose for framing of issues is to bring on record the real controversies between the parties. Out of the pleadings, the court after finding the real controversy between the parties, framed the issues and on these issues, the evidence is invited. Certainly; then the court thinks that if the decision on one or two issues in detail is sufficient to decide the fate of the proposition, the court can do so and for the rest of the issues if framed, if those are regarding the preliminary objections of the defendant or which have been framed on the basis of pleadings and which had the connection with the main issues, and the court considers that even without discussing these issues, the matter can be settled. There is no need to give detailed discussion on those issues. While examining the record, I have seen that this objection of the petitioners was not valid. The first appellate court has given the findings on each and every issue, because on those issues where the onus to prove was placed on the defendants/the petitioners, if the petitioners had not led any evidence then there was no need to discuss in detail the fate of that issue. It was sufficient to mention that no evidence was led by the petitioner/defendant regarding that issue.
And that issue was decided accordingly. In this proposition, the main issues were issues Nos.6 and
7. Learned Civil Judge has discussed these issues at length while fulfilling all the requirements of law. The learned Additional District Judge also in his judgment, has pointed, out that this issue was relevant and whole the fate of the proposition was based on the decision of that issue. Therefore, that issue was decided in detail by the learned first appellate court. If any other issue had any effect on the fate of the proposition, that would have been discussed and answered by both the courts below. Otherwise; the learned Civil Judge has categorically mentioned that onus of the issues which were placed on the petitioners/defendant, did not produce any evidence, hence, there was no need to discuss those issues in detail and they were answered in negative by the court.
8. Now, I come to the legal aspect of this proposition. The property of the minors, admittedly, could not be sold by anybody including the father who is the legal guardian of the minors except in some exceptional cases which have been stated in section 359 (sic) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 that following persons are legal guardian and entitled to be the guardian of the property of a minor;
(1) The father.
(2) The executor appointed by the will of father's will.
(3) The father's father.
(4) The executor appointed by the will of the father's father.
Further; section 362 of the Act ibid empowers the legal guardian to sell the immovable property of the minor under special circumstances mentioned in that. The father of the minors Manqad Hussain, was never appointed as guardian by the court under section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. He has never applied for that. Furthermore; none of the circumstances were there to consider that he sold out the land to the petitioners as per their claim. This is also important that in the agreement to sell Ex .P-1, they have mentioned that Manqad Hussain father of the minors will get the certificate and permission for sale of the property and then, will complete the agreement to sell Ex.P-1. Ex.P-1, according to record, was pen down on 18.06.2003. Till the filing of suit, the respondents/plaintiffs have not brought on record anything that they ever gave any notice to Manqad Hussain for initiating the guardian certificate in order to execute the impugned agreement to sell Ex.P-1. They themselves have also not filed any application before any court to force Manqad Hussain for completion of the agreement to sell. According section 11 of the Contract Act, the minors are not competent to enter into the contract. And any contract which has been shown by the minors or on behalf of the minors without any authority, would be invalid. Even, the person who is appointed as guardian of property of the minors, could not enter into the agreement to sell of the property of minors with anyone except when it is in the benefit of the minors and that also requires the permission of the court. So, knowingly, the act of the petitioners made their version doubtful that they were paying the amount to a person who was even not authorized to enter into a contract and for three years till filing of the suit, they did not take any initiative to complete the said person for initiating to obtain the guardianship of the minors regarding the said property.
9. The other important factor is the execution of document Ex. P-1. This document Ex.P-1 comprises of 03 pages and only on the last page of the document, the signature of Riaz ul Haq, one of the respondent is affixed. In such circumstances, when all the Pert of said agreement are not signed, it makes the agreement/document doubtful and that cannot be relied upon in any way, unless not proved that all 03 Pert were produced with the same aim/object and those were signed by the executor. And there is no sign of any identifier on the same. Reliance is placed on "Zafar Iqbal and others v. Mst. Nasim Akhtar and others" (PLD 2012 Lahore 386) which says that; "First page of such agreement not containing signature of vendor, vendee or any witness or identifier, whereas second page thereof not containing signature of vendee--- Validity--- Such agreement would not constitute a contract---Alleged vendee would not be bound by such agreement for not being its signatory."
On each Pert, there is no signature of the vendee and in that scenario, the execution of the document cannot be said to be proved. So far as the other aspect of proving the same is concerned; the petitioners did not file any application for comparison of the signature/thumb mark present on the same before the learned Civil Judge inspite of the fact that the matter remained pending there for about 06 years. And from the very beginning, from the respondents' side, it was denial that no such document was executed by the respondents. Since; the petitioners were the beneficiaries of the document and they were under obligation to prove the same. The existence of the document, does not mean that it was validly executed and a proved document. When such a document which create a right or mentions some rights or obligations, and if it is denied 1-y the other side who is being effected by the said document, this is rule that the person who is the beneficiary of the document has to prove same. The document mentions that advance amount was paid. But there is no receipt for that when and where that amount was paid. Although; oral assertion of the PWs is there but that is also not consistent regarding the same. In the plaint, there is no mentioning of the fact that this agreement to sell was settled some days prior to the writing of Ex.P-1 whereas, consistently, the PWs mentioned that the, agreement to sell was settled some days prior to the writing of the document. Even, PW-1 says that the agreement was written in the compound of the court and advance money was also paid on that day. He stated that; He did not mention anything regarding the advance payment, whereas, PW-3 said that Whereas; PW-1 in his cross-examination, mentioned that; PW-2 says that;
10. Advance consideration amount had not been proved, because regarding that, no receipt was written on that date, rather; it was not mentioned that why the receipt was not written regarding the same. This is now settled principle that in H cases where the agreement to sell are alleged, the claiming person/plaintiff is bound to mention all the factors on the basis of which he claims that execution of the agreement to sell in the plaint and then, to prove the same with the reliable confidence inspiring evidence. The petitioners have not mentioned this factor that prior to writing of the agreement to sell Ex.P-1, any settlement between the parties is settled 02/3 days before,, in the house of PW-2, rather it is mentioned in Ex.P-1 that; So, the petitioners never succeeded to prove that any settlement between the parties were done regarding the sale of the property. Any amount was received by the respondents in lieu of that agreement to sell alleged by the petitioners. Even the execution of the document Ex.P-1 is not proved through reliable evidence. Even otherwise; "Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal v. Gul-e-Nasreen and others" (2019 SCMR 1880) says that; "Agreement for sale of immovable property---Ample discretion laid with the Court to deny the relief to a purchaser of an immovable property keeping in view the circumstances of each case-- -Purchaser could not claim specific performance of a contract as a matter of right even where it was lawful to do so."
11. There is concurrent findings on facts by the two courts below, which do need interference.
Reliance is placed upon "Shamshad Begum v. Mst, Huma Begum and others" (2008 SCMR 79), Arshad Mahmood v. Additional District Judge and 5 others" (2005 SCMR 516), Haji Abdullah and 10 others v. Yahya Bakhtiar" (FLD 2001 Supreme Court 158) and "Hanif and others v. Malik Ahmad Shah and another" (2001 SCMR 577).
12. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for any discretionary relief on the ground that they had not proved the execution of the document and the payment of the consideration amount. Furthermore; if it supposed that they had paid the amount to the respondents, even then, the respondents had no lien to enter into an agreement to sell on behalf of the minors. Therefore, agreement to sell otherwise not valid and enforceable in the eye of law. Both the learned courts below have correctly decided the issues. All the other issues were also settled on its merits by the learned Civil Judge. Since; onus to prove all those issues were upon the petitioners and the petitioners did not produce any evidence so that those issues could be discussed in detail.
12. In view of above, the petitioners were unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below. There is no misreading or non- reading of the evidence and the law has been properly appreciated by both the courts below. I do not find any merit in this civil revision so, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.