SAEED-UR-REHMAN FARRUKH, J.- This regular first appeal by defendant is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.1994 passed by leamed Civil Judge, Depalpur, whereby suit for specific performance of agreement filed by the respondents was decreed and the counter suit for declaration filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The respondents in their suit, inter alia, averred that the appellant struck a bargain with them for sale of his land measuring I0O kanals situated in village Goonga Awan District Okara on 28.6.1987 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,75,000/- and got the agreement of sale (Ex.DD registered, pursuant whereto, the appellant received a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- and a tractor valuing Rs. 1,05,000/-, with a stipulation to get the sale deed registered on 28.8.1997. Since he was not willing to perform his part of the contract the respondents were forced to file the suit for specific performance of the agreement.
As mentioned in the opening part of the judgment, the appellant filed a declaratory suit disowning the said agreement. Both the suits were consolidated and tried together.
3. Following issues were framed by the leamed trial Court, arising out of pleading of the parties:-
(1) Whether the agreement to sell dated 28.6.1987 is result of fraud, misrepresentation, illegal, void without consideration and in-operative against the rights of the plaintiff? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entered into a valid contract or sale of the suit land with the defendants and received Rs. 1^5,000/- and a tractor of value Rs. 1,05,000/- as earnest money? OPD
(3) If issue No. 2 is proved in affirmative whether the defendants are entitled for a decree of specific performance of the contract, if so under what terms and conditions? OPD
(4) Whether the defendant has got no cause of action to bring this suit? OPP
(5) Whether the suit of Muhammad Ramzan etc. Is mala fide if so its effect? OPP
(6) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is under-valued for the purpose of Court fee, if so what is its correct value and to what effect? OPP
(7) Relief.
With a view to prove his case, the appellant appeared as PW 1 and deposed that he was an illiterate person and the agreement in question had been extracted from him through fraud and deception. Ameer. Ali PW 2 was not prepared to take oath and as such was discharged.
Muhammad Amin PW 3 is not an attesting witness of the agreement in question and his evidence is more in the nature of hearsay than anything else.
In rebuttal the respondents produced, Allah Ditta Nasim DW 1 i.e. The scribe of the disputed agreement Exh. D 1. He deposed that it was prepared by him at the instance of the appellant and he put his thumb impression on it. According to him there were two marginal witnesses namely Noor Ahmad and Malik Muhammad Hussain, who signed the document Exh. D 1 in his presence. He further stated that he made an entry with respect to this document in his register at serial No. 922.
Muhammad Hussain DW 2 and Malik Noor Ahmad, Advocate DW 3 lent full support to the version of the respondents, as set up in their case. Muhammad Akram respondent entered the witness-box in support of hi case.
The leamed Civil Judge, after recording the evidence, vide impugned judgment dated 30.6.1994 proceeded to decree the suit of the respondents and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant.
The appellant has also challenged the impugned judgment with regard to dismissal of his suit.
2. Lt is argued by the leamed counsel for the appellant that it could not be proved on record that the agreement of sale (Ex. D1) had been executed by him of his own volition. According to him the said agreement was the outcome of fraud and deception practiced upon him, he being an illiterate person. It is also submitted that no payment was made under the said agreement and therefore the trial Court had erred in decreeing the suit against him.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at great length. We find that this appeal lacks merit. The execution of the agreement Ex. D 1 stands admitted, though according to the appellant this was the result of fraud and deception. In support of this assertion there is only bald statement of the appellant. The only witness produced by him namely Ahmad Noor had no personal knowledge of the alleged transaction.
On the contrary, the respondents have produced cogent evidence to prove their case. Not only the petition writer but also the two marginal witnesses have come forward to depose about the execution of the agreement Ex.D 1 by the appellant of his own free-will. It is significant to note that this document was got registered by the' parties.
The payment of the earnest money is also proved from the testimony of these witnesses. Even the appellant, during the course of his testimony as PW 1 had to concede that he obtained tractor and trolly from the respondents worth Rs. 1,05,000/- and the tractor was litter on sold by him to one Shah Behram for Rs. 1,05,000/-. Receipt of tractor having been admitted by the appellant during his.
Cross-examination it can be safely concluded that the cash amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was also paid to him at the time of striking of the bargain.
4. For what has been stated above, We find that the learned trial Court, after due appraisal of the evidence on record, rightly decreed the suit of the respondents and dismissed the suit of the appellant. There is no force in this appeal. Dismissed. No costs.