ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--- This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 16-11-1987 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh whereby a suit for specific performance of contract filed by Ghulam Sarwar and others, respondents Nos. 1 to 12 herein, had been decreed against Qazi Muhammad Bakhsh and others, the appellants herein, and Syed Muzaffar Hussain and another, respondents Nos. 13 and 14.
2. The necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 2-3-1974 respondents Nos. 13 and 14 herein entered into a registered agreement to sell (Exh.P.1) with respondents Nos. 1 to 12 herein for sale of the land in dispute for a consideration of Rs.3,50,000. A sum of Rs.2,52,000 had statedly been received by respondents Nos. 13 and 14 as the earnest money and the remaining amount was to be paid by respondents Nos. 1 to 12 by 30-11-1974. However, subsequently without going through the said agreement respondents Nos. 13 and 14 sold the same parcel of land to the present appellants through a registered sale-deed (Exh.D.2), dated 26-8-1974. This prompted respondents Nos.1 to 12 to file a suit for specific performance of. Contract against respondents Nos.1 3 and 14 before the Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh on 28-3-1975. Later on respondents Nos. 13 and 14 submitted their separate written statements before the learned trial Court. In the year 1977 the present appellants were also impleaded as parties to the said suit and the appellants then submitted their written statement contesting the suit. On the basis of divergent pleadings of the parties eleven issues were framed by the learned trial Court and letter on Issues Nos., 10-A, 10-B and 10-C were also framed. In support of their case .Respondents Nos.1 to 12 produced Ashiq Hussain (P.W.1) Who has scribed the agreement to sell, dated 2-3-1974 (Exh.P.1). Israr Huss,in (P.W.2) was produced to prove payment of a sum of Rs.8,000 through a cheque. Umar A.I (P.W.3) was produced being a marginal witness of the agreement to sell (Exh.P.1). Mr.. Mehboob Hussain Ansari, Advocate (P.W,4) appeared to prove a notice Exh.P.4) which was sent on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 12 to respondents Nos.13 and 14 regarding readiness of respondents Nos.1 to 12 to complete their part of the contract. Naseer Bakhsh (P.W.5) stated about his becoming a marginal witness of the agreement to sell (Exh.P.1). Hassan Muhammad (P.W.6), Manager of the daily 'Imroze', stated about publication of a notice (Exh.P.5) in the daily 'Imroze' on 22-8-1974, Ghulam Sarwar, one of the plaintiffs, entered the witness-box as P.W.7. The respondents-plaintiffs tendered in evidence the agreement to sell, dated 2-3-1974 as Exh.P.1, a receipt of a sum of ks.8,000 (Exh.P.2), a cheque of the amount of Rs.8,000 (Exh.P.3), a notice, dated 20-6-1974 sent by respondents Nos.1 to 12 to respondents Nos.13 and 14 (Ekh,P.4) whereby respondents Nos.1 to 12 had expressed their readiness to complete their part of the contract and a notice published in the daily 'Imrozt' on 22-8-1974 (Exh.P.5). As against that the appellants and respondents Nos.13 and 14 produced Mr. Azhar Hussain Hamdani, Advocate (D.W.1) to prove a telegram (Exh.D.1) sent on behalf of respondents Nos.13 and 14 to respondents Nos.1 to 12 on 21-6-1974 regarding cancellation of the agreement to sell between the said respondents. Syed Sajjad Hussain Gillani, Advocate had entered the witness-box as D.W.2 and he had deposed about getting a notice published in the daily 'Imroze' on 29-6-1974 whereby respondents Nos. 13 and 14 had proclaimed that their contract with respondents Nos.1 to 12 had already been cancelled. Qazi Muhammad Bakhsh, appellant No.1 herein and a subsequent vendee-defendant before the learned trial Court, had testified as D.W.3. The appellants and respondents Nos. 13 and 14 had also tendered in evidence a telegram, dated 21-6-1974 as Exh.D.1 and a copy of the registered sale-deed, dated 26-8-1974 as Exh.D.2.
3. After conclusion of the trial the learned Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh accepted the claim of respondents Nos.1 to 12 and decreed their suit for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit-land for a consideration of Rs.3,50,000. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
4. In support of this appeal it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice and, therefore, their interests ought to have been protected by the learned trial Court. In this regard the learned counsel for the appellants has maintained that the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No.10- B warrants an interference and reversal by this Court. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 13 and 14 has also supported the present appeal and has sought dismissal of the suit filed by respondents Nos.1 to 12 so as to protect the interests of the appellants who, according to him, are bona fide purchasers of the suit-land for valuable consideration without notice. As against that the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 12 has maintained that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court warrants no interference by this Court as the same is based upon sound reasoning and is grounded in the facts of the present case.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by us that respondents Nos. 13 and 14 have not challenged the impugned judgment and decree through an independent appeal of their own and they have in fact chosen to support the appeal filed by the present appellants. It is further noticeable that the earlier dealings between respondents Nos. 13 and 14 on the one hand and respondents Nos.1 to 12 on the other were totally alien to the present appellants as they were not parties to the same. In this regard the only issue relevant to the present appellants is issue No. 10-B which is re-produced here for facility of reference: Issues No. 10-B "Whether the defendants Nos.3 to 9 are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice?" OPD.3 to 9.
6. A perusal of the record of this case shows that after entering of respondents Nos. 13 and 14 into an agreement to sell with respondents Nos.1 to 12 the Revenue Record pertaining to the land in dispute had remained unaltered and admittedly no indication was available in the Revenue Record pertaining to the said land regarding any such agreement so as to warn any prospective buyer to remain away from the said land during the subsistence of the said agreement to sell. It is also available on the record that the said agreement to sell had been registered on 2-3-1974 and on 21-6-1974 a telegram (Exh.D.1) had been sent to respondents Nos.1 to 12 by Mr. Azhar Hussain Hamdani, Advocate (D.W.1) acting on behalf of respondents Nos. 13 and 14 informing respondents Nos.1 to 12 regarding cancellation of the said agreement to sell on account of non-fulfilment of a condition of the said contract. It is also borne out from the record that on 29-6-1974 Syed Sajjad Hussain Gillani, Advocate (D.W.2) had got a notice published in the daily 'Imroze' to the effect that the agreement to sell between respondents Nos' 13 and 14 and respondents Nos.1 to 12 had already been cancelled. It was probably in that background that respondents Nos.1 to 12 had got a notice published in the daily 'Imroze' on 22-8-1974 (Exh.P.5) wherein they had maintained that their agreement with respondents Nos. 13 and 14 was subsisting and that any other prospective buyer of the land in question should stay away from that land. However, only four days later, i.e. On 26-8- 1974 the present appellants purchased the land in dispute from respondents Nos. 13 and 14 through a registered sale-deed (Exh.D.2). All this material tends to show and it shows very clearly to us, that the original agreement to sell, dated 2-3-1974 between respondents Nos.1 to 12 and respondents Nos. 13 and 14 had practically ceased to exist by the end of June, 1974 as the same had repeatedly been proclaimed to have been terminated by respondents Nos. 13 and 14 on account of violation of a condition of the said agreement. Publication of a notice by respondents Nos.1 to 12 in the daily 'Imroze' on 22-8-1974 was meant only to scare away any prospective purchaser of the suit-land. It was in that backdrop that the present appellants entered the scene and purchased the suit-land while entertaining an honest belief that the earlier agreement between the respondents was over and done with and the land in dispute was available for its purchase by the appellants. Even Qazi Muhammad Bakhsh, defendant-respondent No.1 herein, had stated before the learned trial Court in so many words that he could not positively assert that the appellants knew about existence and subsistence of the original agreement to sell between respondents Nos. 13 and 14 and respondents Nos.1 to 12. We have also noticed that the appellants had purchased the land in dispute at a time when it was Banjar Qadeem and it is with their toil and hart] work that they have made the same culturable and cultivatable. The appellants have also been in possession of the suit-land ever since its purchase by them about twenty six years ago. Their claim of having entered into this bargain with nothing but bona fide on their part has remained unrebutted on the record available in this case.
7. For what has been discussed above the finding of the learned Trial Court on Issue No, 10-B is reversed and decided in favour of the present appellants. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh on 16-11- 1987 are set aside and the suit of respondents Nos.1 to 12 is, dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.