1. ' A multi-storeyed building of composite nature comprising residential and non-residential premises bearing Survey No, SE-37-R-26, Dil Muhammad Road, Lahore was an evacuee property.
2. There were 35 rooms in the building including four shops on its ground-floor. By a deed of association entered into between one Sakhawat Ali Shah, and Muhammad Yousaf on 4-3-1979, the above property was transferred to Muhammad Yousaf by the Settlement Authority. Transfer order was issued in his favour. There was a long chain of litigation fought out between Sakhawat All Shah and Muhammad Yousaf regarding genuineness of the deed of association and the transfer of the building on its basis. Eventually, the dust was finally settled by decision of this Court, in Civil Revision No, 1525/D of 1987, decided on 28-11-1987 by Malik Lahrasap Khan, J. And title of Muhammad Yousaf as permanent transferee of the building was cleared from doubt.
3. ' Case of the petitioners was that litigation made Muhammad Yousaf penniless. He also suffered an accident. His legs were fractured in it. He was paralytic also. Nazir Ahmad who was a tenant in occupation of four rooms on third floor of the above building gave a sum of Rs,60,000 as loan to Muhammad Yousaf for meeting his requirements. He promised to return the loan on demand by Nazir Ahmad. A receipt on plain paper was written in acknowledgement of the loan. It was attested by two witnesses. It wps undated. Its scribe was undisclosed.
4. ' On 17-12-1985, Nazir Ahmad gave another sum of Rs,2,00,000 to Muhammad Yousaf, who upon its receipt agreed for the sale of the above building upon payment of Rs,400,000. Rs,2,60,000 were already received by him and upon receipt of balance price in the sum of Rs,1,40,000 he agreed to complete the sale. Nazir Ahmad occupied a few rooms on the third floor of the building as tenant of Muhammad Yousaf. Proprietary possession respecting these rooms was transferred to Nazir Ahmad and possession of portion of the building in occupation of Muhammad Yousaf was also transferred in his favour. A document on a five-rupee stamp-paper styled as a power of attorney was written in English in favour of Nazir Ahmad. It recited the above facts in it. It was attested by two marginal witnesses and was signed in Urdu by Muhammad Yousaf. Again name of the scribe was not disclosed on the deed. Yet another receipt was scribed for acknowledging the payment of Rs,1,40,000 on 12-12-1988. Above three documents tried to give proof for an agreement to sell the building by Muhammad Yousaf and receipt of Rs,4,00,000 from Nazir Ahmad by him.
5. ' There was no separate formal agreement to sell concluded between the parties, except for the two receipts and the power of attorney noticed above. A shop in the building was sold by Muhammad Yousaf to Muhammad Siddique by a registered deed on 21-8-1989 for a sum of Rs,70,000. On 17-1-1990, Muhammad Yousaf sold ownership rights in the remaining building to respondents Nos. 14 to 16 through registered sale-deed of even date.
6. ' Muhammad Yousaf died on 2-2-1990. His successors-in-interest were on file as defendants Nos. 1 to 12 ' Nazir Ahmad brought a suit for specific performance in respect of agreement to sell against heirs of Muhammad Yousaf and transferees of the building by him. An application for temporary injunction for stopping interference with his existing possession on the building and its further alienation was filed in the trial Court. Some of the heirs of Muhammad Yousaf were stated to be ex parte and some appeared and denied the sale agreement by Muhammad Yousaf and receipt of Rs,4,00,000 by him from Nazir Ahmad. Execution of the abovementioned documents was also denied. The purchasers also denied the claim and asserted that they were bona fide purchasers for value of the above building.
7. ' Like the suit, application for temporary injunction was also contested. By the order impugned in appeal, the application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial Court on 22-9-1993.
8. Since Nazir Ahmad died after the filing of the suit in the trial Court, his successors were brought on record and they were now prosecuting the suit for specific performance.
9. ' Learned counsel was heard in support of the appeal. Two receipts written on plain papers and power attorney scribed in English were all unregistered documents. They did not disclose the identity of their scribe. Heirs of Muhammad Yousaf and purchasers of the building from him seriously denied the genuineness of agreement for sale, correctness of the documents ascribed to him and receipt of consideration under them. They asserted that these documents were forged and concocted by the tenants of the building collectively with the active aid and assistance of Yousaf Kazmi, Advocate who had represented Muhammad Yousaf in Court litigation.
10. ' Petitioners have yet to prove existence of an agreement to sell the building in question and payment of sale price for it to Muhammad Yousaf. In face of a clear denial of it by the defendants, a heavy burden of proof for it lay upon them which they have yet to discharge to the satisfaction of the Court trying the cause. In view of the accommodation and location, the building must be fairly valuable. It was shown to be in occupation of number of tenants. Defendants Nos. 14 to 16 have already purchased the building through registered deed from Muhammad Yousaf. Muhammad Siddique has also purchased a shop on the ground floor. Registered sale-deeds in favour of the new owners could not be kept aside for deciding of the application for temporary injunction. It was yet to be proved by the petitioners that the purchasers from Muhammad Yousaf had any notice of the alleged agreement for binding them with its effect. Rule of lis pendens protected the petitioners from the adverse effect of pendente lite alienations. As for apprehension of disturbance of alleged possession, it was ill-founded. In presence of registered sale-deeds in their favour, neither Muhammad Siddique nor defendants Nos.14 to 16 could be restrained from proclaiming themselves as owners of the building. Petitioners, therefore, have no prima facie case in their favour, muchless the other ingredients of balance of convenience and irreparable loss. I would, therefore, agree with the learned trial Judge for refusing relief of temporary injunction to the petitioners. The result of it is that the appeal is dismissed in limine.
11. ' Records be returned to the trial Court.