1990 PLP 387 (SCMR)

M. Sharif Chohan and MA. War, Advocates Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th June, 1989. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 15 June, 1985 of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Circuit Bahawalpur, whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the disputed property in this case belonged to Ghulam Muhammad son of Rulya, Ghulam Muhammad son of Alam Din and Mst. Waziran Bibi. The petitioner was also claimant of the disputed shop but he did not succeed in getting the same. Therefore, he claims to have entered into a contract with the respondent (one of the owners of the disputed shop) who executed an agreement to sell in his favour the said shop for a consideration of Rs.30,

000. He further promised to get the property transferred from the joint owners and then to get the sale‑deed registered. Since nothing was done the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. The respondent contested the suit. Eventually the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal of the petitioner was also unsuccessful because the exclusive ownership of the respondent of the disputed property could not be proved and hence the suit of the petitioner was considered only in the respect to 1/3rd share in the disputed property of the respondent. The concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the property in dispute could not be divided into 2/3rd parts and that the shop in dispute was joint property were upheld by the High Court at the revisional stage. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner before us attempted to argue that the Courts below had wrongly discarded the report of the handwriting expert in relation to the agreement of sale, that there was no justification to consider the said document as suspicious, that the statements made by the PWs were not false and finally that the petitioner remained in possession of the disputed shop for a considerable time and no proceedings were initiated by the respondent. It was submitted that inference could be drawn from the possession of the petitioner of the disputed property that it was in consequence of the agreement to sell and that the respondent was trying to get the share of the other two persons transferred in his favour which was a condition in the said agreement. After hearing learned counsel we are of the considered opinion that all the three Courts have given concurrent findings to the effect that the disputed property was jointly owned by the respondent and two others and one of them could not enter into an agreement to sell with the petitioner particularly when the document pertaining the said contract had been held to be not proved. Since the findings of fact have been decided against the petitioner no case is made out for interference. As a result this petition is dismissed. A.A./A‑583/S Petition dismissed.