1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-Respondent, under an agreement dated the 5th January 1966, agreed to sell in favour of the petitioners his half share in agricultural land measuring 356 Kanals, 18 Marlas, situated in village Machhika, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, for a sum of Rs. 40,000. He acknowledged to have received a sum of Rs. 10,000 as earnest money from the petitioners.
2. Subsequently, the respondent sold his half share in the above-mentioned land in favour of the petitioners under a sale-deed dated the 21st March 1966, registered on the 22nd March 1966. Rs.
3. 30,000 were paid by the petitioners to the respondent at the time of registration before the Sub- Registrar and the balance of the amount was acknowledged to have been received.
4. The respondent brought a suit for cancellation of the above--mentioned sale-deed on the ground that he was a simpleton and weakling mentally as well as physically. He was under the influence of the petitioners due to relationship, who finally prevailed upon him and obtained the impugned sale-deed in their favour. He alleged that the impugned sale-deed was without consideration and obtained by undue influence. The trial Court decided issues Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in favour of the respondent and granted him a decree by judgment dated the 20th December 1967. The respondent's appeal was dismissed on the 7th March 1969, by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura.
5. Thereupon, the petitioners filed R. S. A. No. 428 of 1969, but a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dismissed the same in limine the 4th November 1969, and also refused to grant certificate of fitness of Letters Patent Appeal vide his order dated the 2nd March 1970. He held that the appeal was concluded by a question of fact, that the alleged sale in favour of the petitioners was without consideration. Reference was made before him of the following pieces of evidence :-
(I) The recital in the sale-deed itself,
(2) The admission of the vendor before the Sub-Registrar wherein he admitted to have executed the sale-deed and received the consideration,
(3) The evidence of Manzoor Ahmad, D. W. I, who identified the vendor before the Sub-Registrar, and
(4) The earlier agreement by virtue of which Rs. 10,000 was paid to the vendor.
6. Reference was also made to the allegation made in the replication filed by the respondent wherein he had pleaded that the money which is alleged to have been paid to him before the Sub- Registrar was taken away there and then. A learned Single Judge held that all these factors have been taken into consideration by the Courts below and merely because another point of view could also be sued on same facts, is no ground to interfere in second appeal. With regard to the previous agreement he held that the Courts below had held that it was not a genuine document.
7. As regards the proceedings before the Sub-Registrar, he relied on the finding of the Courts below that this was merely, "a stage-managed act and actually the sale-deed is without consideration".
8. It is thus quite clear that the High Court in second appeal has applied its mind to the facts of the present case and has come to the conclusion that since there was concurrent finding of fact simply because some other view points could also be taken is no ground to interfere with the order of the Courts below. This view is in accordance with the decision of the Federal Court in the case of Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmad. (PLD 1955 FC 38) We have also examined the evidence in this case and it is quite clear that the finding of the Courts below is based on the evidence led on behalf of the parties. We, therefore, find no force in the petition which is dismissed.