' Judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by him on 28-6-1992 maintaining the judgment of the learned trial Court is the subject-matter of the present revision petition, it arises as follows:-- ' A suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent on the basis of an agreement, dated 28-9-1976 claimed to have been executed by Mst. Zubaida Begum petitioner No,1, in her favour regarding House No,B1324 situated inside Bhati Gate, Lahore for Rs,15,000 and that the entire sale price agreed between the parties had been paid and possession of the upper portion of the house in part performance was also transferred. It was her case that when the petitioner No,1 refused to execute the sale-deed she was constrained to file the suit. The suit was contested by the petitioner No,1, who did not deny her signatures on the said agreement and receipt of Rs,15,000 from the respondent. It was, however, pleaded that her signatures were obtained on a blank stamp paper and Rs,15,000 was a money advanced to her as loan. It was pleaded that the suit property was of much more value and was not less than Rs,70,000. The petitioners Nos.2 to 7 were impleaded later on as they claimed gift of the suit property by petitioner No,
1. From the pleadings of the parties a number of issues were framed by the trial Court whereafter\ the parties produced evidence in support of their respective pleas. On considering the evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 3-5-1989 decreed the suit. Important issues such as issue No,1, as to whether the agreement to sell was unconscionable, the onus of which was on petitioner No, 1/defendant was decided against her. Issue No,2 as to the execution of agreement, dated 28-9-1976 was found in favour of respondent/ plaintiff. Issue No,3 as to whether signature of petitioner/defendant were obtained on a blank stamp paper by fraud etc. Was decided against the petitioner/defendant.
Issue No,4 as to whether petitioner No,1 had received Rs,15,000 as loan was also decided against her. Issue No,5 as to whether petitioner No,1 had gifted the property prior to the execution of agreement to sell, was also decided against her.
2. On appeal filed by the petitioners the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court and dismissed the same vide judgment, dated 28-6-1992. This is revision petition against the same.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that petitioner No,1 was made to sign a blank stamp paper which was used as an agreement to sell by the respondent through fraudulent means in collusion with the attesting witnesses. It is contended that the money received by the petitioner No,1 was a loan and not the sale price of the house, which was of much higher value that Rs,15,000. It is contended that the suit property had already been gifted by petitioner No,1 to her brother through an oral gift in the year 1976, therefore, there was no question of its sale to the respondent. It is contended that the findings of the two Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on the record and are liable to be interfered with by this Court. Further, contends that deposition of the two attesting witnesses was the requirement of law which was not fulfilled in the present case, therefore, the execution of agreement Exh.P.3 was not duly proved. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. Naseer Hussain and others PLD 1995 Lah. 395, Ghulam Nabi v. Muhammad Yusuf and 2 others 1993 CLC 314, Ghulam Hussain and 7 others v. Mehdi Hassan Khan and 6 others PLD 1993 Lah. 303, Muhammad Zaman Khan v. Sher Afzal Khan and 8 others PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K)
138. It is contended that even an oral gift was valid in law in view of section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and relies on Maulvi Abdullah and others v. Abdul Aziz and others 1987 SCMR 1403 for this purpose.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent contends that in view of admission of signatures on Exh.P.3 by petitioner No,1 and the receipt of money there was a heavy onus to be discharged by her that she signed the blank stamp paper but no evidence has been produced to prove her stance. It is contended that it was an agreement to sell which did not require attestation; therefore, production of two attesting witnesses was not necessary. He, however, submits that Aziz Ahmad one of the witnesses to the agreement had died, therefore, his production could not possibly be arranged. It is further contended by him that there was no gift by petitioner No,1 as the house remained in her ownership throughout and there was no change in the official record such as property tax etc. It is finally contended that the two Courts below recorded findings of fact on correct appreciation of evidence which does not require interference by this Court in revision. He has relied upon The Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi v. Messrs Karomax Industries and 3 others PLD 1976 Kar.
983.
5. Exh.P.3. Is the agreement of 28-9-1976 written on a stamp paper. It is signed by petitioner No,1 which signatures are admitted by her. Receipt of Rs,15,000 is also not denied. This document relates to the suit property. To prove that the signatures were put by petitioner No,1 on a blank paper, a heavy onus had to be discharged by her to displace the face value of the document. A lot of effort was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to discredit the deposition of Muhammad Yousaf Gillani the scribe of the document but despite a lengthy cross-examination no material discrepancy could be brought out from his statement. He categorically stated that the document was written by him on the asking of petitioner No,1 which was read over to her and that she put signature thereon in his presence, as also the receipt of Rs,3,000 from the respondent in addition to the amount of Rs,12,000 already received by her. It has come on record that attesting witness Aziz Ahmad had died and was also admitted by petitioner No,1 when she appeared as D.W.S. The other attesting witness was Ch. Abdul Hameed who had purchased the stamp paper on behalf of petitioner No,1 and was acting for her. During the examination-in-chief it was stated by her that she did not know him but in the cross-examination her answer was different and stated that she did not remember whether Ch. Abdul Hameed had been acting for her. In the circumstances and the type of evidence available on record, learned trial Court justifiably recorded findings that Exh.P.3 was a genuine document, an agreement to sell, executed by petitioner No,1 in favour of the respondent. The learned appellate Court on consideration of the evidence again has affirmed the said findings. The perusal of the evidence on record does not lead to any different conclusion by this Court even. No convincing and reliable evidence has been brought on record to show that document Exh.P.3 was indeed for some other purpose. In the case of the Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi v. Messrs Karomax Industries and 3 others PLD 1976 Kar. 983 it was held that in the face of the document it was not possible to rely on an oral assertion of the defendant that the document signed by defendant was delivered to the plaintiff in blank. On considering the evidence on the record in its totality and the assertion of petitioner No,1 that the property was of much higher value than Rs,15,000 mentioned in the Exh.P.3, a quite clear inference is deducible that the appreciation of the value gave rise to the dispute between the parties and change of mind by petitioner No, 1.
6. Simple inadequacy of the consideration money does not vitiate the transaction itself. In Ali Muhammad Khan (represented by his heirs) v. Riazuddin Khera PLD 1981 Kar. 170 it was argued that in view of the inadequacy of the price a specific performance of the agreement should be declined. The argument, however, was repelled that inadequacy should be so gross that it should shock the conscious of the Court for refusing the specific performance. In the instant case both the Courts have returned finding of fact on due consideration of the evidence and decided issue No,1 against the petitioner. I do not find any justification to record any different findings. The same are, therefore, unexceptionable. Reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of Muhammad Yaqoob and others (supra) is not apt in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in view of the facts and circumstances of that case specific performance of the agreement, which was not proved through convincing evidence, was refused in that case. In Ghulam Hussain and others (supra) the simple assertion of the plaintiff that the attesting witness was dead, was not believed in the absence of the proof thereof, and it was held that the concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below were not liable to interference in revision by this Court. It also has its own peculiar facts, whereas in the present case it has been proved on record that Aziz Ahmad the attesting witness had been dead. In view of the unshaken deposition of P.W.1 the scribe of the document and coupled by the prevailing circumstances deposed by the respondent in her testimony, the findings of the two Courts below are amply justified and warrant no interference whatsoever.
7. The contention of the learned counsel that petitioner No,1 had already gifted the suit property to her brother in the year 1976 does not find support from the evidence on record except the oral assertion. The documents placed on record clearly show to the contrary. Nothing has been brought on record to show any change of ownership throughout thereafter. Had there been any real transaction the donor or the donee should have made efforts for the change of ownership in the record of the Excise and Taxation Department for property tax. There is nothing on record of that nature to show the change of ownership. There is no cavil that a gift could be made orally but when the question of its proof arises the same is to be established through clear and convincing evidence. The same is lacking in the present case.
8. For the abovesaid reasons, I do not find any justification to upset the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below in the case which are duly borne out from the evidence on record. No exception can be taken to the conclusions and the judgments.
' As a result of the above, this petition has no merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.