' This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 10-7-1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore affirming the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 8-11-1994.
2. The facts culminating into the filing of this revision petition are that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for possession through specific performance of agreement dated 22-2-1985 and in the alternative for preemption and for permanent injunction. Subsequently the relief for possession through pre-emption was given up by him. It was averred in the plaint that Property No,N.E.XVI-49- S-28 situate in Madhu Lal Hussain Road, Baghban Pura was a `Katri'. It originally belonged to one Mehr Din (the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5) and Muhammad Siddique, Abdul Majeed and Mst. Ghulam Fatima. After the demise of said Mehr Din the property devolved upon his legal heirs including the plaintiffs/petitioners and defendants/respondents 1 to 5 as joint owners. Plaintiff Muhammad Saleem was the son of Mst. Zainab and plaintiff Razia Bibi was the daughter of Mst. Sardar Begum. Said Mst. Zainab and Sardar Begum were the daughters of Mehr Din, deceased. The plaintiffs and other heirs inherited the property in accordance with their shares. The suit property was divided amongst the joint owners through a private partition vide agreement dated 22-2-1986. Abdul Majeed and his sister Mst Ghulam Fatima received lesser share than the other two. The parties agreed that in case any of the parties wanted to sell his shares in the house he will offer it for sale to the other co-sharer and on his refusal the owner was at liberty to sell the same to anyone. In March, 1986 the plaintiffs came to know that defendants 1 to 5 were planning to sell their share in the property to defendants/respondent No,6. The plaintiffs reminded them the clause of the agreement dated 22-2-1986 regarding the first offer of the sale to other co- sharers but the defendants paid no heed to it. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from selling the property to any other person except the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a written statement in which it transpired the property had been sold to the defendants for Rs,60,000 vide agreement dated 9-3-1986 and Rs,45,000 had been received in advance. The defendants resisted the suit mainly on the ground that house had been sold to defendant No,6 for a consideration of Rs,60,000 vide agreement dated 9-3-1986 and that the house was first offered to the plaintiffs but they declined to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs,60,000.
3. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the transaction of sale dated 9-3-1986 is illegal, mala fide, void and ineffective upon the rights of plaintiffs? OPP.
(2) If Issue No,1 is proved in positive, then whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for specific performance of agreement dated 22-2-1986? OPD
(3) Whether the agreement to sell dated 9-3-1986 by defendants Nos.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No,2 is actually a sale? OPP.
(4) Deleted.
(5) Whether ostensible sale price Rs,60,000 was filed in good faith? OPD.
(6) If issue No,5 is proved in negative, then what was the market value of suit land at the time of transaction? OP Parties.
(7) Whether suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(8) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action? OPD
(9) Whether the suit is barred under Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C.? OPD
(10) Whether suit is hit by the principle of res judicata? OPD
(11) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
(12) Whether the defendants Nos. I to 5 offered the plaintiffs to purchase the property before selling it to defendant Nos.6? OPD
(13) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their own words and conduct?
OPD
(14) Whether the suit is incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is correct one? OPD
(15) Relief.
' The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 8-11-1994 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners. The appeal before the learned Additional District Judge met the same fate on 10-7-1995.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Additional District. Judge, Lahore decided Issue No, I only and that too was erroneous and gave no finding on other issues.
' Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the alleged agreement dated 22-2-1986 was not enforceable under section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and defended the impugned judgments.
5. Where an arrangement had been arrived at between the members of the family that is designed to promote peace and goodwill amongst its members, this, by itself is a good consideration to support the transaction. Court will not scan too closely the quantum of consideration for the agreement in cases of family arrangement. An agreement by one of the party to a partition to take a smaller share can be sustained when that is done for the preservation of the family property or honour. In the case of Mst. Lauf Jahan Begum v. Muhammad Nabi Khan (AIR 1932 Allahabad 174)
D.B.) it was observed as under:-- "The existence of a dispute or the assertion of a claim to any property is not essential for the creation of a family settlement. Where an arrangement has been arrived at between certain members of the family that is designed to promote peace and goodwill amongst certain of its members, this, by itself a good consideration to support the transaction. It is an established rule of law that in cases of family arrangement, Courts will not scan too closely the quantum of consideration."
The contention of the learned counsel for respondents that the contract was not enforceable under section 21(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 is devoid of any force. There is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the agreements the term is very clear and enforceable at law. The learned Additional District Judge has not decided other issues whether the offer for sale was made to the plaintiffs and whether they refused to purchase the same for Rs,60,000?
6. In this view of the matter this appeal is allowed and the case is remanded to the Additional District Jude, Lahore for re-writing of the judgment after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.