This Civil Revision arises from the judgment/decree dated the 22nd of May, 1980, passed by the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the petitioner-- defendant's appeal was dismissed.
2. Both the parties are real brothers. The respondent Allah Ditta sued the petitioner for getting half of the land obtained by him from their sisters as a result of litigation for which he allegedly gave him financial support. He relied upon an agreement dated the 8th of September, 1973, maintaining that after the petitioner obtained the decree in regard to the land against the sisters, he declined to transfer to him half thereof.
3. The suit was resisted denying the execution of the agreement as also the financial support statingly rendered by the respondent to the petitioner. He pleaded that the agreement, if any, was void being against public policy, champertous, scandalous and what not.
4. Appropriate issues on these pleadings were framed. Both the Courts below overruled the objection of champerty; upheld the execution of the agreement between the two and concurrently decreed the suit.
5. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Waraich, Advocate for the revision petitioner relied upon Aga Sikandar A.I Khan v. Mst. Nawab Bibi, etc. (PLD 1973 Lah. 77) in support of the contention that there being no specific assertion of the consideration, the agreement was void for uncertainty under section 29 of the Contract Act. I am afraid the agreement itself provides that both the parties were spending at the ratio of 50:50 and that they had agreed to share the booty, at the same ratio. There was no element of ambiguity in the terms and conditions of the contract. Rather the arrangement was quite equitable between them as they were getting proportionate to what they were spending.
Secondly, he argued that reference to pendency of an appeal in the agreement (Exl). P.W. 3/1) was misplaced inasmuch as no such appeal was then pending. He relied upon copy of the plaint (Annex. `J') which showed that the appeal had been decided much earlier on the 26th of May, 1971, than the execution of this agreement taking place on the 8th of September, 1973. The point has no substance because the execution of the agreement seems to have been proved beyond any manner of doubt. Indeed, the petitioner admitted the factum of his own signatures on the document, though he tried in a clumsy way to explain that he instead put-down his signatures on a blank paper. If one could say this was a proverbial way of half denying the execution of a document It was of no help to the petitioner. Once this document was held proved, it would not lie in his mouth to say, that a term thereof was factually incorrect on the ground that the so-called appeal will not then pending. In a way it will he an effort to produce evidence to contradict the terms of an agreement which is not permissible under Articles 102 and 103 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat, 1984.
6. No other point of law was canvassed. The revision petition is dismissed in limine.
H. B.T./M-1656/L