' This Civil Revision arises from the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, whereby he on 24-6-1981, reversed the judgment and decree dated 30-11-1980 passed by learned Civil Judge Vehari, decreeing the suit for specific performance filed by Noor Muhammad petitioner/plaintiff against Ghulam Muhammad respondent.
2. The facts leading up to this revision in brief are that on 19-1-1974. Noor Muhammad petitioner filed a suit for Specific Performance of agreement to sell dated 23-1-1968 with regard to land measuring 71. Kanals and 4 Marlas allotted to Ghulam Muhammad respondent under Colonization of Government Lands Act. The suit was contested by raising preliminary objections and denying the averments in the plaint.- On the pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as 6 issues : Issues ;
(1) Whether the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff ?
(2) Whether the defendant received Rs, 1,700 as part payment, and
(3) How much amount the plaintiff paid towards the total payment ?
(4) Whether the suit is not competent in the present form ?
(5) Whether the suit bears deficient court-fee ?
(6) Relief.
' The trial Court found issues Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of petitioner/plaintiff. On issue No, 3, the trial Court found that Rs, 9,210.87 have been paid by the plaintiff/petitioner, Issue No, 4, 4-A and 5 were also decided in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. In view of these findings, the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was decreed on 30-11-1980. Feeling aggrieved Ghulam Muhammad filed appeal which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge who while confirming the findings of the trial Court on issues Nos. 1, 2. 3, 5 and making no comments on issue 4-A, however, reversed the findings of the trial Court on issue No, 4 and resultantly accepted the appeal dismissing the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that the suit for Specific Performance filed by the plaintiff/petitioner was premature. Hence this revision.
3. The learned counsel submits that under the law, the respondent/ allottee could execute agreement to sell the land after the proprietary rights were conferred on him and since the possession was transferred at time of agreement to sell, the agree was quite legal one.
Furthermore, since the entire sale price has been deposited, therefore, the suit for specific performance is capable of being enforced.
4. After hearing the learned counsel I find that Ghulam Muhammad respondent was alloted said State land measuring 9 acres, one Kanal and 10 Marlas ; that he executed agreement to sell in favour of Noor Muhammad petitioner ; that according to agreement, the possession was not delivered at that time and that the entire sale price has been deposited. Abdul Hameed, Colony Clerk, P. W. 4 has stated that : {{URDU TEXT}} It is, therefore, crystal clear from the statement of the witness produced by the plaintiff/petitioner that Pata Malkiat of the suit land has not been prepared so far and the matter is still under consideration. In this situation, the mere fact that the entire sale price has been deposited would not make much difference inasmuch specific performance of the agreement to sell by respondent No, 1 is not possible unless Pata Malikiat is issued in his favour because he cannot get the land transferred through any mutation or registered sale deed without having Pata Malkiat in his name.
The appellate Court has, therefore, rightly found that the suit was premature.
5. For what has been stated above, there being no merit in this revision, the same is dismissed in limine.