Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AHMAD VS Respondent: BASHIR AHMADHonorable Justice Muhammad IlyasSyed Iftikhar Ahmad Shah,Ch.Muhammad Hassan Nemo
1988 M L D 1261
1988 M L D 1261
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Ilyas, J
AHMAD‑‑Appellant
versus
BASHIR AHMAD and 2 others‑‑Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No.284 of 1980, decided on 14th February, 1988.
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑--
‑‑‑S.12‑‑Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell‑plaintiffs‑respondents alleging that vendor‑appellant agreed to sell certain land in their favour and received earnest money‑‑Suit dismissed by trial Court but on appeal decreed by District Judge‑‑Agreement deed having. been registered endorsement recorded by Sub‑Registrar thereon revealing that contents of agreement which included recital regarding payment of earnest money were admitted by Attorney of appellant at time of its registration‑‑No legitimate exemption, could in circumstances, be taken to the finding of District Judge that earnest money was paid‑‑Plea of appellant that agreement deed was without consideration, held; was, therefore, without any force.
Syed Iftikhar Ahmad Shah for Appellant.
Ch.Muhammad Hassan for Respondents Nos.1 and‑2.
Nemo for Respondent No.3.
Date of hearing: 14th February, 1988.
JUDGMENT
This regular second appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by respondents Nos.1 and 2, namely, Bashir Ahmad and Wazir Ahmad, against the appellant, Ahmad, and respondent No.3, Muhammad Ramzan. It was a suit for specific performance of an agreement. It was alleged by respondents Nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) that the appellant, acting through his general attorney, namely respondent No.3 Muhammad Ramzan, who is also his son, agreed to sell certain land in their favour for Rs..30,000 and received Rs.14,000 as earnest money according to them, the land was under mortgage for a sum of Rs.7,000 and thus the balance of the sale price amounting Rs.9,000 was to be paid by them at the time of execution of the sale‑deed. Plea of respondents Nos.1 and 2 was that the sale‑deed was to be executed till 28th August, 1966 but the appellant and respondent No.3 declined to do so although they (respondents Nos.1 and 2) were ready to pay the balance of the sale price. Suit was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura. Respondents Nos.1 and 2, therefore, went in appeal before an Additional District Judge of Sheikhupura. He accepted the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence this appeal.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the agreement to sell was without consideration. In other words, his plea was that the sum of Rs.14,000 was not paid as earnest money. It was not denied that the land was under mortgage for Rs.7,000.
3. Deed embodying the agreement in question, of which execution was admitted by respondent No.3, is EX.P.1. Bhag (P.W.3) and Muhammad Tufail (P.W.4) are the marginal witnesses of the said agreement deed. It was deposed by them that the sum of Rs.14,000 was paid by way of earnest money. To the same, effect is the statement of respondent No.1, Bashir Ahmad, who appeared as his own witness. Strangely enough, there is no evidence in rebuttal. Appellant appeared as D.W.5 but did not say that the said sum was not received by him or by his attorney, namely, respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 did not dare to go in the witness‑box. The said agreement deed was registered. Endorsement recorded by the Sub‑Registrar on the agreement deed also reveals that contents of the agreement, which include recital regarding payment of Rs.14,000, were admitted by respondent No.3 at the time of its registration. In the circumstances, no legitimate exception can be taken to the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the sum of Rs.14,000 was paid as earnest money. There is thus no force in the plea of learned counsel for the appellant that the agreement deed was without consideration.
4. No other point was canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Resultantly, this regular second appeal fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.
S.Q./A‑301/L Appeal dismissed.