M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--The facts giving rise to this petition are that Khalifa Nasiruddin Siddiqui, the P.T.O. Holder of property No. 76-E, Model Town, Lahore, entered into an agreement with his sister Mst. Aziza Razia and two others in respect of half share of the property for which they paid Rs.27,000, Rs.6,780 and Rs.3,956 from their respective compensation books. He surrendered the remaining half in favour of petitioner Faizanul Haq by an agreement of Association, dated 11-1-1963 which was accordingly transferred in favour of the latter. Subsequently, the P.T.O. Holder got the agreement with Mst. Aziza Razia cancelled on 25-5-1963 and entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 5-2-1964 in respect of that half also of the property and an payment of the price by him, P.T.O. Was issued in his favour on 1-5-1965. Subsequent to the cancellation of the agreement with Mst. Aziza Razia, the amount of Rs.27,000 was withdrawn but the other two amounts totalling Rs.10,736 remained to be restored. On coming to know of it, the petitioner applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and got the amount transferred to his compensation book. Khalifa Nasiruddin Siddiqui agitated the matter and ultimately succeeded in securing order, dated 10-6- 1972 directing that the sum of Rs.10,736 be debited in the name of the petitioner and be recovered from him.
2. This was challenged by the petitioner by Writ Petition No. 415/R of 1972 but the same was dismissed on 13-4-1976. The learned Judge not only rejected the petitioner's contentions but also found him guilty of suppression of pertinent facts which would disentitle him to the aid of the Court.
3. The contention is that under the agreement, the petitioner was to pay to the Settlement Authority only the balance amount due anti that as such he was entitled to the adjustment of the amount of Rs.10,736. It is further submitted that he had already paid this amount separately to Khalifa Nasiruddin. The point raised is one of fact and in any case is not supported at all by the relevant agreement, dated 5-2-1964, a copy of which has been furnished in the supplementary paper- book. Under the agreement, the petitioner was liable to pay the price and other demands as were payable by the original P. T.O. Holder. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed