' FAZAL KARIM, J.---The plaintiff Mst. Gulshan now respondent, brought this suit for the recovery of 10 Kanals of land described in para. 4 of the plaint on account of dower. Her claim was founded upon two documents namely an agreement dated 15-9-1990 and the Nikahnama. In both those documents it was stated that the dower was fixed at Rs,1,00,000 and that in lieu thereof 10 Kanals of land had been given to the plaintiff. As to the identity of the land so given, there is to be found in the agreement dated 15-9-1990 a reference to Mutation No,8259, by which the petitioner Ali Ahmad had purchased 40 Kanals of land described therein, 1/4th whereof was given on account of dower to the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge held that what the plaintiff was entitled to was a money decree. The learned District Judge, however, found that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the recovery of the land but as he found that the marriage had not been consummated, what he gave was a decree for the recovery of 5 Kanals of land only. The petitioner challenged that decree by means of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution but was unsuccessful. He now seeks leave to appeal.
2. The only point tried to be made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the document dated 15-9-1990 transferred the land to the plaintiff and, therefore, required registration. Assuming that the deed dated 15-9-1990 required compulsory registration, the plaintiff's suit was a suit for recovery of possession and was, therefore, both in form and in substance it was a suit for the specific performance of the agreement contained in the document dated 15-9-1990 and the Nikahnama dated 16-9-1990. Secondly learned counsel for the petitioner was fair to concede that the petitioner had given or agreed to give the land in question to the plaintiff in lieu of dower by means of the deeds referred to above. This formal concession means that the justice of the matter lies in favour of the plaintiff. In other words in decreeing the suit, the Courts below have done justice and we would not, therefore, countenance a technical plea to defeat the ends of justice.
3. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.