1998 PLP 724 (CLC)

Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Mohandra for Petitioner. Ch. Naseer Ahmad for Respondents. This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 11‑12‑1994 of District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, whereby, petitioner's appeal against the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Sadiqabad, dated 7‑11‑1994 has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Jamil filed a suit for permanent injunction against petitioner Bahadar Khan that they are owners of the land described in the plaint and that the defendant/petitioner has nothing to do with the land in dispute unless he pays Rs.6,10,000 which is balance amount of the purchase price. In the plaint, it is alleged that plaintiffs are owners of the suit land and entered into agreement to sell with the defendant/petitioner regarding this land; Rs.2,00,000 were paid to the plaintiffs as earnest money and the rest of the amount was to be paid before 15‑12‑1993; and the possession was to be delivered to the defendant/petitioner at the time of the payment of the balance amount. Subsequently, it is alleged, that the defendant took the land in dispute from the plaintiffs on tenancy with the intention to defraud the plaintiffs. It is further alleged that the defendant instead of paying the balance amount, filed the suit for specific performance and also manoeuvred to get instituted another suit through one Muhammad Anwar for possession. The plaintiffs, to show their bona fides in the suit for specific performance filed a consenting written statement to honour their agreement with the present petitioner and asked for the payment of the balance amount. In the instant suit, it is, therefore, stated that the petitioner/defendant has not paid the remaining amount and, therefore, he has no right to keep the possession. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C:, with the prayer to restrain the defendant from cultivating the land. They also filed an application for appointment of Receiver. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the arguments disposed of both these applications vide his order, dated 7‑11‑1994.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at pre‑admission stage and have also gone through the record, copies whereof, have been attached with this petition.

4. It is admitted that the parties entered into an agreement to sell and the plaintiffs were paid Rs.1,90,000 with the condition that the rest of the amount will be paid up to 15‑12‑1993. It is also an admitted fact that till now, the remaining price has not been paid. This fact is also admitted that the possession is also with the defendant/petitioner who is not paying any share of produce to the respondents/plaintiffs. Mere agreement to sell does not transfer rights of property and the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents has weight to the effect that the learned Trial Judge, whose order was confirmed by the first Appellate Court correctly directed the petitioner to pay the share of produce to the plaintiffs and till it is not paid, should not lift any produce from the land in dispute. The petitioner, at the most, has the status of a tenant. He never got the possession of the land in dispute under agreement to sell. In Khasra Girdawari also, he is mentioned as a tenant and, as such, the tenant is bound to pay "Batai" (share of produce) to the owners before lifting the produce from the field. For what has been stated above, I see no merits in this petition, which is dismissed in limine. A. A./B‑24/L Revision dismissed