RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.-- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the High Court judgment, dated 23.11.1998 whereby his Civil Revision No. 1723 of 1992 directed against the common judgment of Additional- District Judge, Kasur, dated 12.9.1999, modifying the decree, dated 26.11.1990 passed by learned Civil Judge, Kasur, was dismissed.
2. Respondent Ibrahim filed a suit for possession of suit-land measuring 15 Kanals, 3 Marlas out of 19 Kanals, 11 Marlas owned by Muhammad Yousaf through contracts of sale, dated 7.6.1984, 24.12.1985 and 28.12.1985. According to the entries in the Revenue Record, total area of the land measuring 123 kanals was recorded in the name of Muhammad Yousaf predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 2 and others. It is the case of petitioner that he purchased land measuring 15 kanals, 3 Marlas vide registered sale-deed, dated 2.12.1987 from respondent No. 2, Ghazanfar Ali for a sale consideration of Rs.40,000. In the suit filed by respondent No. 1, he had based his claim on the premises that . One Naib Subedar Muhammad Yousaf had entered into an agreement of sale of his total land vide agreement, dated 7.6.1984 against a consideration of Rs.80,000 and received Rs.64,000 as earnest money. The sale-deed was to be executed after obtaining permission from General Headquarters as the land appeared to have been allotted under the Border Area Scheme by the Border Area Committee. Balance consideration of Rs. 16,000 was payable before the Sub- Registrar. The said Muhammad Yousaf died before the completion of the sale-deed, whereupon, mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his legal heirs who agreed to perform the sale contract after receipt of Rs.32,000 as against greed amount of Rs. 16,000. The said amount was paid to the legal heirs, who, except Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi, Abdul Qayyum and Mst. Arshad Bibi, executed an agreement in favour of respondent No, 1 Abdu! Qayyum executed agreement, dated 11.2.1986, while respondent No. 2 Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi on 28.12.1985 endorsed the agreement, dated 24.12.1985 and admitted that all the legal heirs had received the amount of their shares, It wae averred that all the other legal heirs had performed their part of agreement whereas Ghazanfar Ali appointed respondent Ibrahim as his general attorney, who got alienated land measuring 4 kanals, 8 marlas in favour of, one Muhammad Sadiq but rest of the land could not be transferred on account of some defect in the Fard describing the land falling to the lot of Ghazanfar Ali i.e. Measuring 15 Kanals, 3 Marlas, It was pleaded that Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi was asked to transfer rest of the land in favour of respondent Ibrahim, who instead of performing his part of contract, sold out his land in favour of petitioner Chiragh, which necessitated the institution of the suit.
3. The suit was resisted by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2-Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi refuting various averments made in the plaint raising certain preliminary objections. On the divergent pleas of the parties, following issues were settled:- "(1) Whether Naib Subedar Muhammad Yousaf, the owner of suit-land entered into an agreement to sell the suit-land to the plaintiff? OPP
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in is present form? OPD
(3) Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action?. OPD
(4) Whether defendant No. 2 is entitled to special cost under Section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD No. 2.
(5) Whether plaintiff is estopped to bring suit by his on words and conduct? OPD
(6) Whether plaintiff has waived his right? OPD.
(7) Whether agreement is bogus, collusive and as such not performable? OPD
(8) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for? OPP
(9) Relief."
4. On assessm ent of evidence, learned Civil Judge decreed the suit for alternate relief of recovery of Rs. 11,825 but refused the relief of specific performance. Petitioner as well as Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi feeling aggrieved filed to separate appeals, which were disposed of by a common judgment whereby appeal of respondent Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi was accepted whereas petitioner's appeal was dismissed against which both the parties preferred civil revision petitions before the High Court.
5. During the pendency of the revision petitions before the High Court, Ghazanfar Ali Abbasi withdrew his petition, which was allowed to be withdrawn vide order, dated 5.11.1995. However, learned High Court dismissed the civil revision of the present petitioner.
6. It is, inter alia, contended that respondent Ibrahim utterly failed to prove the agreement, dated 7.6.1984 as well as the subsequent agreements, inasmuch as, he did not place the agreements on record and the agreement, dated 24.12.1985 (Exh. D.1) was produced in evidence by the present petitioner, It is further submitted that respondent-Ghazanfar Ali never agreed to sell his land measuring 15 kanals, 3 marlas to the respondent and the suit was illegally decreed in favour of the respondent, It is the case of the petitioner that he is a bona fide purchaser for consideration through a registered sale-deed and the land purchased by him could not, in law, be decreed in favour of respondent-Ibrahim, who miserably failed to prove any transaction relating to this piece of land.
7. Contentions raised are not without substance and the case requires re-examination and re- appraisal of the evidence. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted to consider the questions raised in the petition.
8. Interim stay granted earlier shall continue to operate till the decision of the appeal.