' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal had been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 21-2-1993.
2. The facts to be noted are that respondents Nos. 1 to 9 brought a suit for specific performance against the vendors, respondents Nos. 10 to 12. According to the plaintiffs, respondents Nos. 9 and 10 executed a registered agreement of sale dated 9-12-1980, of the land in dispute for a consideration of Rs,1,50,000. Rs,55,262 were paid before the Registering Officer, and the remaining sale price was to be paid at the time of registration of the deed. During the pendency of the suit, the vendor sold the land to the petitioners. The vendor admitted the execution of agreement, but said that the agreement was without consideration. The three Courts have concurrently held that the vendors were agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs. Rs,55,262 were paid by the plaintiffs to the vendors before the Registering Officer on 9-12-1980. The plaintiffs had always been ready to perform their obligations. The vendors and the petitioners filed an appeal before the District Court, but the vendors did not join the petitioners before the High Court. The agreement Exh. P. 1 is a registered document. The evidence has been properly appreciated by the Courts below. There are concurrent findings of fact.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Khushi Muhammad had only signed the agreement on his behalf and on behalf of the others and some of the plaintiffs were minor on the date of sale. The High Court has positively recorded that all the plaintiffs are parties to the contract. This fact was not denied in the written statement. Even otherwise, Khushi Muhammad entered into the transaction for the benefit of all the vendors. There is nothing to suggest that the interest of the minors has not been taken into consideration by Khushi Muhammad.