1. This civil revision by the plaintiffs arose out of a civil suit filed by them for a relief of specific performance respecting an agreement to sell in their favour. Suit was instituted on 25-7-1968. It was dismissed on merits by the trial Court. An appeal from the decree of the trial Court failed on 8- 2-1988, in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kasur.
2. Dispute concerned House No. 29/68, situate in Oila Rupa Singh of Town Committee, Chunian, in District Kasur. It was owned by a non-Muslim evacuee. It was initially allotted to Ghulam Hussain petitioner No.1, in the year 1948. He did not pay the necessary dues. Consequent upon it, disposal of the house was put to auction and it was purchased by Nazar Muhammad Khan. P.T.O. was issued in his favour on 19-12-1960 and P.T.D. on 26-2-1965. Nazar Muhammad Khan constituted Mehdi Hasan Khan, his attorney by a deed registered on 29-12-1965. Original or certified copy of the registered power of attorney was not on file. A reference to it is available in the certified copy of the registered sale-deed Ext. D.1.
3. Ghulam Hussain son of Abu-al-Fazal, Miraj Din son of Barkat Ali, Muhammad Afzal, and, Ali Hassan claimed that Nazar Muhammad Khan through his general attorney Mehdi Hassan Khan had agreed for the sale of the above house to them for a consideration of Rs.3,250. Agreement to sell was reduced in writing on 28-3-1967, and, sum of Rs.500 were paid as earnest money. Date for finalization of the sale was fixed on 20-4-1967. It was asserted that in terms of sale-agreement concluded with them, Nazar Muhammad Khan had not completed the sale. Instead, the house was sold by him to Mst. Batool Begum wife of Mehdi Hassan Khan, on 27-7-1967, through a registered sale-deed. Relying upon a prior agreement to sell in their favour, they brought a civil suit for specific performance against Mehdi Hassan Khan, Muhammad Ramzan Khan, Khair Din and Mst.
4. Batool Begum. Necessary averments on the lines noted above were made in the plaint of the suit for specific performance. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 submitted separate written statements and denied the averments in the plaint respecting prior agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs.
5. On 14-7-1976, the trial Court found the suit to have abated, and, dismissed it. On appeal, the decision was reversed and the suit was remanded to the trial Court for its fresh decision on merits after framing of issues. On 22-4-1984, the trial Court framed necessary issues. Thereupon, it took evidence from the parties. Upon its scrutiny, the suit was dismissed, on 21-5-1986. On 26-3-1987, this decision was reversed, in appeal, by learned Additional District Judge, who remanded the suit to the trial Court to proceed with it after complying with the provisions of Orders XIII, Rule 4 of C.P.C.
6. On 15-4-1987, the trial Court again dismissed the suit on merits, mainly, on the ground that truth of agreement to sell Exh.P.1 was not established. On appeal, this decision was affirmed by learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, on 8-2-1988. Hence, the instant civil revision, which was admitted to hearing, on 19-9-1992.
7. Seen from the above, civil revision raised only a point regarding genuineness of agreement to sell Exh.P.1 respecting the house in dispute. Lower Courts found that its execution by Mehdi Hassan Khan was not proved. In my view, the conclusion is unexceptionable. Testimony of P.W.I.is immaterial.
8. P.W.2 Muhammad Ramzan deposed that he had scribed agreement to sell dated 28-3-1%7 marked Exh.P.1, on the file. His cross-examination has shattered his credibility, and, also genuineness of Exh.P.1. Overwritings in Exh.P.1 were not owned by him. He admitted that neither Mehdi Hassan thumb-marked Exh.P.1, nor, was he present on the occasion of writing of Exh.P.1. He further admitted that Mehdi Hassan had not asked him to write Exh.P.1.Ghulam Hussain son of Abu-al-Fazal as P.W.3 gave evidence in support of the agreement to sell and payment of part consideration under it.
9. Agreement Exh.P.1 bears his signature. Apart from its scribe, Miraj Din, Ilam-ud-Din and Shabbir Hussain were its marginal witnesses. It bore their thumb-impressions and signature respectively.
10. None from them appeared at the trial to support its execution by Mehdi Hassan. It was significant that Mehdi Hassan did not sign or thumb-mark the agreement to sell. Muhammad Ramzan P.W.2 categorically deposed that Mehdi Hassan was not present at the occasion. Execution of Exh.P.1 at the instance of Mehdi Hassan, in the above circumstances, was inconceivable. Since Muhammad Ramzan had denied overwritings at material points in Ext. P.1, an application for comparison of his signature on Ext.P.1 with his sample signature was made to the trial Court. Other side resisted the application. On 3-11-1984, the trial Court gave permission for comparison of signatures. Sample signatures of Muhammad Ramzan were taken in Court. However, on 27-11-1984, the request for comparsion of signatures by an expert-witness was abandoned and the matter was, thus, dropped. Muhammad Hanif Khan, D.W.1, Mst. Batool Begum D.W.2, and, Mehdi Hassan D.W.3 gave evidence to falsify Exh.P.1 and establish the sale of the house in dispute in favour of Mst. Batool Begum through a registered sale-deed on 27-7-1967. In face of a clear denial of execution of agreement to sell Exh.P.1 by Mehdi Hassan, the plaintiffs were obliged to produce its marginal- witnesses to remove all conceivable doubts about its genuinenesss. The plaintiffs failed to discharge that obligation. Learned counsel for them submitted that marginal-witnesses were dead at the time of taking of evidence by the trial Court. I have a little difficulty to accept the statement at its face value. There is no proof of this fact on the record. On behalf of the petitioners, Exh.P.2 was heavily relied upon. It did not much assist them. Nazar Muhammad was dead, before the suit for specific performance was filed. Nonetheless, Ghulam Hussain brought a suit against him through his Mukhtar-Aam Mehdi Hassan for a declaration and relief of perpetual injunction.
11. The suit was dismissed by way of compromise on 27-2-1968. In absence of the plaint of the suit, its nature was not ascertainable. Further, any compromise entered'into between an alleged heirs of Nazar Muhammad with Ghulam Hussain on 27-2-1968 did not materially affect the genuineness of sale-deed dated 27-7-1967, in favour of Mst. Batool Begum. She had already purchased the house, when the alleged compromise was shown to have been made. In her absence, her rights in the property could not be bartered away so lightly. Be that as it may, the record led to an irresistible conclusion that agreement to sell Ext. P.1 was not proved in the hand of Mehdi Hassan Khan.
12. Independent of Ext. P.1, there was no antecedent agreement for sale of the house, either by Nazar Muhammad Khan or his attorney. Therefore, agreed conclusion on the ungenuineness of Ext. P.1 was beyond reproach and immune from interference in revisional jurisdiction. On the file of the trial Court, there was an order of learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, passed in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1977 on 13-11-1977. It showed that Mst. Batool Begum had sued Ghulam Hussain for his ejectment from the house in dispute. Ejectment petition was dismissed, on 16-9-1976, by the Rent Controller, on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant was not established. But in appeal, the decision by the Rent Controller was reversed and ejectment case was remanded for proceeding on merits. However, final order on the ejectment case was stopped, till the decision of the suit for specific performance. In all these years, Ghulam Hussain enjoyed possession of the property without sharing its income with the true owner.
13. In view of foregoing discussion, I see no force in the civil revision and dismiss it with costs assessed at Rs. 2,000. If the ejectment case is still pending, Rent Controller shall revive it for its decision with utmost expedition.
14. Records be returned forthwith.