This revision is directed against the Judgments/decrees dated 22-12-1979 and 10-1-1981 passed by a learned Civil Judge, Naushehro Feroze and the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Nawabshah in Civil Suit No. 23 of 1972 and Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1980 respectively.
2. That brief facts leading to the filing of the above revision are that the land measuring 14-21 acres situated in Deh Abjee, Taluka Naushehro Feroze, District Nawabshah was allotted to one Ghulam Nabi who died. It is not known when he had died. Be that as it may, he left behind one Abdul Aziz and respondents Nos. 3 to 12 as his legal heirs as per averment in the revision application. It appears that said Abdul Aziz expired. His son Muhammad Aslam, respondent No. 2, by a Sale Agreement dated 6-1-1969 agreed to sell 6 acres land, the details of which are given in para. 1 of the plaint, in favour of respondent No.1, hereinafter referred to as the suit land. It appears that respondent No.1 paid a sum of Rs. 200 at the time of the execution of the sale agreement and the balance was to be paid on the completion of the sale transaction. It was the case of the respondent No.1 that he was put into possession upon the execution of the sale agreement. It also appears that respondent No.1 filed aforesaid suit on 14-2--1972. The above suit was resisted. It appears that during the pendency of the above suit, the respondent No. 2 and the other legal heirs of deceased Ghulam Nabi purported to have sold the land in favour of the applicant by a registered sale-deed dated 11-4-1973. After coming to know about the sale, the respondent No.1 filed an application for amendment of the plaint for impleading the respondents Nos. 3 to 12. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties as many as the following 12 issues were framed:-- "(1) Whether Abdul Aziz was sole heir of deceased Ghulam Nabi and he inherited whole of the suit land?
(2) Whether persons shown in para. 3 of W.S. Are heirs of Ghulam Nabi?
(3) Whether defendant No.1 executed agreement of sale of suit land to the plaintiff and received Rs.
200 from him? If so, whether the alleged agreement is valid and effective?
(4) Whether the possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff? If so, what is its effect?
(5) Whether the suit is not maintainable?
(6) Whether the Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?
(7) Whether Nizamuddin is necessary party?
(8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief sought for?
(9) Whether defendant No. 2 is bona fide purchaser for value without notice of alleged agreement of sale?
(10) Whether the defendant No. 2 is co-sharer and the alleged agreement is not enforceable against him?
(11) Whether the suit is bad for non Joinder of necessary parties?
(12) What should the decree be?"
3. In support of the above suit, the respondent No.1 has examined P.W. Muhammad Yaqoob, D.S.P.
Finger Print Bureau; P.W. Fazullah his attorney; P.W. Muhammad Khan; P.W. Mahmood; P.W. Jahan Khan and P.W. Sujawal, whereas the applicant examined himself and other DWs. Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad A.I, Ishraquddin and Usman.
4. It further appears that at the hearing of the case issues Nos. 1, 2, 7, 9, 10 and 11 were not pressed.
The other issues were decided in favour of respondent No.1. The applicant and respondent No. 2 being aggrieved by the above judgment filed the aforesaid Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1980, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nawabshah by his above Judgment/decree dated 10-1---1981. The applicant has, therefore, filed the present revision.
5. In support of the above revision application Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned counsel for the applicant, has urged as follows:--
(i) That since respondent No. 2 was one of the legal heirs of Abdul Aziz, he could not have sold 6 acres of land as his share was little over one acre.
(ii) That the sale agreement was in violation of M.L.R. 64/115.
6. As regards the above first submission, it may be observed that though Issue No.1 relates to the question whether Abdul Aziz was the sole heir of deceased Ghulam Nabi but the same was not pressed nor the above issue was pressed before the learned Additional District Judge, Nawabshah in the appeal. In my view in this revision it is not open to me to re-open the above issue. The very fact that the applicant and respondent No. 2 had not pressed the above issue indicates that the parties were contended without pressing the same.
7. Adverting to the second submission regarding violation of MLD. 64/115, it may be observed that there was no such issue pressed before the learned trial Court but during the argument, the same was raised before the learned Additional District Judge who has observed in his judgment that the above issue was not raised before the trial Court. He has further observed that respondent No. 2 has sold his entire holding. In my view, in the absence of raising of any specific issue before the trial Court and in the absence of any issue on the above point, the question whether the sale agreement in question had violated the above M.L.R., could not have been decided without having evidence or the question of total holding of the respondent No. 2 at the tine of execution of the sale agreement.
8. On merits I am in agreement with the two Courts below that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the execution of the sale agreement in favour of respondent No. 2. On the factum that he was put into possession, he produced revenue receipts. This aspect is proved from the Revenue record in addition to ocular evidence. The plea taken by respondent No. 2 before the trial Court was that he had not put his thumb-impression on the sale agreement which plea was found false on the basis of the evidence of P.W. Muhammad Yaqoob, D.S.P. Finger Print Bureau.
9. It was also contended by Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid that the applicant is, the bona fide purchaser under registered sale-deed. The above plea is devoid of l any force. As pointed out by the learned Additional District Judge, the suit was filed in February, 1972, whereas the alleged sale deed was executed on 11-4-1973 i.e. After about one year and 2 months from the date of the filing of the above suit.
10. The revision application has no merits. The same is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.