' Through this civil revision, petitioners have assailed judgment and decree, dated 16-94999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chunian, whereby he accepted appeal filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 and reversing judgment and decree, dated 18-6-1991 of learned Civil Judge, Chunian, decreed suit of respondents Nos.1 to 3 for possession through specific performance of agreement.
2. The main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the learned Additional. District Judge erred at law and exceeded his jurisdiction by holding that the suit was within time and the learned Additional District Judge committed material irregularity by holding that respondents Nos.1 to 3 were entitled to the decree for specific performance of the suit and that the petitioners were not bona fide purchasers of the suit property without notice of earlier agreement to sell.
' Contrarily, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 supported the impugned judgment and decree.
3. Despite notice, no one appeared on behalf of respondents Nos.4 to 10 (legal heirs of Manzoor Ahmad, the vendor). As such, they are proceeded against ex parte. It is also noted that said respondents were proceeded ex parte before learned First Appellate Court as well.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record annexed with the present civil revision.
5. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30-7-1977 executed by Sh. Manzoor Ahmad deceased i,e, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.4 to 10 as well as agreement, dated 4-2-1977 executed by respondents Nos.4 to 10. It was also claimed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 as plaintiffs that sale mutation, dated 10-11-1985 made in favour of the petitioners by respondents Nos.4 to 10 be also declared to be illegal and invalid. Plaintiff respondents Nos.1 to 3 also claimed to be in possession of the suit property in part performance of agreement to sell and alleged that petitioner/defendants had prior knowledge of their agreement and possession. And that they had initially paid a sum of Rs,36,500 to Sh. Manzoor Ahmad, deceased under agreement, dated 30-7-1977 and also paid Rs,5,000 to respondents Nos.4 to 10 under agreement, dated 4-2-1978 with them, as they, in their capacity as legal representatives of Sh. Manzoor Ahmad, deceased, undertook to transfer the said property in their name upon inheritance mutation and upon issuance of Guardianship Certificate and on decision of pending litigation in Board of Revenue. The said plaintiffs, as such, pleaded that out of the total sale price of Rs,47,000, only an amount of Rs,5,500 outstood, which they were willing to pay, but respondents Nos.4 to 10 initially avoided to execute a sale-deed in their favour on the pretext of Guardianship Certificate and a stay order from Board of Revenue, but it also transpired later that they, through sale Mutation No,1994, dated 10-11-1985, had illegally and unlawfully transferred the suit property by way of sale in favour of petitioner/defendants and that the said sale was ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiffs.
6. Petitioner/defendants submitted their contesting written statement, whereupon, 11 issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned Civil Judge, thereupon adjudged existence and execution of agreement to sell dated 30-7-1977 in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 3 (the plaintiffs) but refused to pass a decree for specific performance in their favour by holding their suit to be time-barred and petitioners to be bona fide purchasers without notice of earlier agreement etc. Learned Civil Judge, however, proceeded to pass a decree for recovery of earnest money paid by plaintiffs to respondents Nos.4 to 10. Appeal was dismissed by the then learned Additional District Judge through judgment and decree, dated 21-6-1992. These judgments and decrees were challenged before this Court through a civil revision by the plaintiff respondents. This civil revision was accepted by this Court on 25-11-1997, whereby, judgment and decree, dated 21-6-1992 was set aside and the case was remanded to learn Additional District Judge for rehearing the appeal. Upon rehearing the appeal the learned Additional District Judge passed the impugned judgment and decree, dated 16-6-1999, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondents, hence the present civil revision.
7. Both the learned Courts below, through proper and due evaluation of evidence, held that Sh.
Manzoor Ahmad, deceased had, upon receipt of earnest money, executed and made agreement to sell, dated 30-7-1997 in favour of plaintiff/respondents and the said agreement was duly acknowledged and endorsed by respondents Nos.4 to 10, as legal heirs of Sh. Manzoor Ahmad who died prior to execution of the sale-deed on the date fixed in agreement, dated 30-7-1977.
Respondents Nos.4 to 10 received a further sum of Rs,5,000 as earnest money from plaintiff/respondents under agreement dated 4-2-1978 and undertook to execute necessary sale- deed in favour of plaintiff respondents upon award A of Guardianship Certificate and decision of litigation before Board of Revenue. Endorsement on the back of this agreement also proves that the matter was postponed by respondents Nos.4 to 10 from time to time and no specific date was fixed by them for execution of sale-deed. They, however, in breach of their undertaking, sold the said property to the petitioners through sale Mutation No,1994, dated 10-11-1985, hence providing a cause of action to respondent/plaintiffs to file their suit. As no definite date had been fixed by respondents Nos.4 to 10, therefore, taking the date of sale to petitioners as the date of refusal to perform, respondent plaintiffs were well within their rights and time to file suit for B specific performance and for avoiding sale mutation, dated 10-11-1985. Learned Additional District Judge validly held the-suit of respondents to be within time while deciding Issue No,4.
8. It is noteworthy that neither petitioners nor respondents Nos.4 to 10 challenged the findings of the learned Civil Judge on execution of the agreements to sell respectively by late Sh. Manzoor Ahmed in 1977 and later by his legal representatives in 1978. The findings of the learned Civil Judge thus attained finality. The obvious consequence flowing therefrom was that the suit of the respondent/plaintiffs for specific performance deserved to be decreed particularly when the suit was held to be within time.
9. Learned Additional District Judge, on due and proper analysis of evidence, validly held that petitioners as subsequent vendecs; had the knowledge of agreement in favour of respondent/plaintiffs particularly in view of their possession of the suit-land. And that no cogent and specific evidence was led by petitioners on their bona fide purchase without notice of agreement to sell in favour of respondent/plaintiffs. The question of fact has been adjudged by learned Additional District Judge on the basis of due and proper analysis of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any misreading or non-reading of evidence and also as to how the learned Additional District Judge has committed any material irregularity in rendering the impugned judgment and decree. In absence of any misreading or non-reading or any excess of authority or material irregularity, I see no justification in the impugned judgment and decree, dated 16-9-1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge. Chunian, particularly when the same is based upon evidence. In view thereof, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Revision .