P L D 2005 Lahore 419 (PLP)

This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District fudge, Narowal, dated 25‑5‑1998 confirming the decree dated 30‑5‑1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge First Class, Narowal.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the plaintiff Syed Abid Hussain Shah (the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents) filed a suit against the defendant/petitioner on 31‑10‑1989 for specific performance of the agreement dated 20‑1‑1988 in respect of sale of land measuring 10 Kanals for a consideration of Rs.23,

000. It was averred in the, plaint that the defendant/petitioner agreed to sell 10 Kanals of land for a consideration of Rs.23,000 vide agreement to sell dated 20‑1‑1988. The sale‑deed was to be executed and registered on 15th April after receiving the entire sale consideration but the defendant/petitioner backed out. The suit was resisted stating that the agreement dated 20‑1‑1988 is based upon fraud and that the said agreement was without consideration. Out of the pleadings of the parties following 'issues were framed:‑‑ (1) Whether the defendant agreed to sell the suit‑land in favour of the plaintiff and executed an agreement dated 20‑1‑1988? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for specific performance of contract, if so, what terms and conditions? OPP (3) Relief. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondents on 30‑5‑1993. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal vide judgment dated 25‑5‑1998.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged agreement dated 20‑1‑1988 is not an agreement in the eye of law as it is not signed by the vendor. It was a unilateral act of the petitioner not enforceable at law. Only one marginal witness was produced, the sale transaction has not been proved on the record. Reliance was placed on Jatadhari Prasad and others v. Kishun Lai Daruka and others (AIR 1950 Patna 535) and Mst. Barkat Bibi and others v. Muhammad Rafique and others (1990 SCMR 28). Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was not necessary for the plaintiff/respondent to sign the agreement. A legal document came into existence which was enforceable at law. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Sultan and 9 others v. Noor Muhammad (2000 YLR 3022), Arbab Ali and 4 others through Legal Heirs v. Noor Bakhsh and 4 others (2003 CLC 1670) and Sirbaland v. Allah Loke and others (1996 SCMR 575).

4. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below, perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. `Iqrarnama' Ext.P.1 displays that Mst. Nazir Begum, petitioner agreed to sell her land measuring 10 Kanals to Syed Abid Hussain Shah (the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents) for a consideration of Rs.23,

000. The agreement reveals that no earnest money or any other consideration was paid, nor the agreement was signed by the respondent Syed Abid Hussain Shah. There are three essentials of a contract ` offer/proposal, its acceptance and consideration. The petitioner agreed to sell her land vide `Iqrarnama' dated 20‑1‑1988, Ext.P.1 but the same document reveals that the offer/proposal was not accepted by the respondent. The element of acceptance is lacking in the alleged agreement to sell. A contract comes into existence upon acceptance of the offer/proposal. Similarly the ingredient of consideration is also missing in the agreement. To have an agreement it is very essential that there should be consideration, for the promise. No earnest money has been paid nor any promise to pay the consideration has been made. The said agreement Ext. P.1 appears to be unilateral writing of the petitioner. An agreement to be enforceable as contract under section 2(e) and (h). of the Contract Act, 1872 requires signatures of two parties. See Bayer h Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Board of Revenue and others (2002 CLD 823). Even otherwise only marginal witness Muhammad Sharif. P.W.2 has been produced to prove the said agreement. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents do not help him.

5. For what has been stated above this petition is allowed, the judgments of the Courts below dated 30‑5‑1993 and 25‑5‑1998 are set aside, resultantly the suit of the respondents is dismissed. No order as to costs. M.B.A./N‑39/L Petition accepted.