MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- against the appellant. According to the plaint the appellant was an allottee of the suit land and agreed to sell .
The same to the respondent vide agreement dated 1.7.1972 for a consideration of Rs.60,000/-. He was paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- in advance a receipt whereof was acknowledged in the said agreement. The agreement was got registered. The balance amount was paid to the appellant at the time of registration of mutation. It was a term of the agreement that in case the land goes out of the possession and title of the respondent, the appellant was to compensate him by returning the consideration amount as also by reimbursement of expenses on litigation. One Murad s/o Samanda challenged the allotment and ultimate conferment of proprietary rights on the appellant by filing a suit. The suit was dismissed in the first instance by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vehari on 12.3.1980. However, the matter was remanded in appeal vide order dated 8.11.1980. The suit . Was again dismissed on 16.7.1981. However, the learned District Judge, Vehari allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of said Murad on 29.5.1984. The respondent field a Civil Revision in this Court which was dismissed on 8.7.1984. Result was that the respondent lost the land. He filed the suit claiming reimbursement of Rs.60,000/- the consideration amount and Rs.40,000/- towards the expenses. The appellant filed a written statement objecting that the suit is barred by time. On merits it was stated that the agreement dated 1.7.1972 as well as mutation are forged and fictitious and that no land was sold by the appellant to the respondent. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court decreed the suit in the sum of Rs.60,000/- and dismissed the suit regarding the remaining amount vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.1991. The appellant filed a first appeal while the respondent filed cross-objections against the said judgment and decree. Both the matters were heard by learned District Judge, Vehari who dismissed the appeal as well as cross- objections vide judgment and decree dated 1.4.1992.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Courts below have misread the evidence on record while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. No one has turned-up for the respondent.
3. I have gone through the record of the lower Courts with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant. Ex.P.1 is registered agreement dated 1.7.1972. This document has been proved by producing Muhammad Shoaib scribe of Ex.P.1 who stated with reference to his Register that he had scribed the said agreement and that the parties had signed his Register. Muhammad Sarwar P.W. 5 is the marginal ,witness of the agreement Ex.P.1. P.W.6 is Muhammad Ramzan who identified the parties before the Sub-, Registrar at the time of registration of the agreement Ex.P.1 Copy of Mutation No. 11 attested on 21.7.1972 is Ex.P.2. It has also been proved with reference to record produced by P.W.1 and P.W.2. Apart from the said evidence the respondent had produced on record the judicial proceedings of the civil suirfiled by the said Murad. These were contested proceedings and the respondent had filed the written statement. This document is Ex.P.8, wherein the appellant averred that he had received a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the respondent and transferred the land to him. The written statement bears signatures of the appellant as also of his learned counsel and the plea finds mention in the judgment and decree passed in the suit. In this state of evidence it cannot be said that the evidence has been misread by the learned Courts below.
4. It stands proved on record that the respondent lost the land as it was found that the appellant had no valid title to transfer. Apart from the express term of the agreement Ex.P.1, the appellant is bound to reimburse the respondent at least the consideration amount he received from him for the said land which he was not entitled to sell. No question of law arises in this R.S.A. And the factual controversy has correctly been resolved by the learned Courts below. This R.S.A. Is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.