This revision petition filed by the petitioners/defendants impugns the appellate judgment and decree dated 8-3-1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. Through the impugned decree the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 30-10-1988, whereby the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs was dismissed, was set aside. As a consequence of the judgment, the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was decreed by the learned lower Appellate Court.
2. The respondents-plaintiffs had sought specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 12-6- 1984 (Exh.P.1). It was the case of the respondents-plaintiffs that the said agreement was an agreement to sell while the petitioners-defendants pleaded that the same was not an agreement to sell but merely a contingent agreement to enter into a further agreement if the petitioners- defendants decided to sell their land within a period of three months. It was also the case of the petitioners that the terms of the agreement were not ascertainable there from particularly as the description of the land, the area of the land and the rate at which the land was to be sold, had not been specified in the agreement.
3. The controversy between the parties can easily be resolved by adverting to the contents of the agreement itself. The agreement does not contain any obligation to on the part of the petitioners- defendants. In fact out of the three petitioners, who are owners of the land in dispute, only Syed Riaz Hussain petitioner No.3 executed the agreement (Exh.P.1). Even the said petitioner does not make any commitment to sell. The agreement merely says that if the said petitioner No.3 decides to sell his land, he will sell to the respondents and not to anybody else. The agreement further expressly stipulates that if within a period of three months from the date of the agreement, the petitioner No.3 does not sell the land he will be liable to repay to the respondents a sum of Rs.5,000 received by way of Beyana alongwith an additional sum of Rs.5,000.
4. From the contents of the agreement Exh. P.1, I am not in the slightest doubt that the same did not constitute an unconditional and absolute commitment on the part of the petitioner No. 3 to sell his land. It was only in the event he decided to sell the land within three months from the date of the agreement that he was obliged to sell to the respondents.
5. In addition to the above, it is clear that Syed Rafaqat Ali and Syed Najabat Ali petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, are owners of the land. These petitioners did not execute the agreement Exh.P.1 nor did they authorise Syed Riaz Hussain petitioner No.3 to sell the land. As such there was no valid right vesting in the respondents against these two petitioners-defendants.
6. The learned lower Appellate Court has not taken into account the aforesaid circumstances and the clear wording of the agreement Exh.P.1. Moreover, the provisions of section 29 of the Contract Act and section 21(c) of the Specific Relief Act have also not been appreciated while passing the appellate judgment. I, therefore, find that the learned lower Appellate Court has misread Exh.P.1 and has also not applied the relevant law to the facts brought on record. In this view of the matter the impugned judgment and decree are set aside. As a result the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 30-10-1988 stand restored.