1987 PLP 2069 (CLC)

Ejaz Ahmed Chaudhry for Appellant. A.R. Tayyib for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th April, 1987. The facts leading to this Regular Second Appeal, briefly, are that Plots No.13‑14, Model Town‑A, Extension Scheme, Bahawalpur, were allotted to Dr. Rehmat Ullah respondent/ plaintiff by Improvement Trust, Bahawalpur. He paid Rs.1500 as earnest money. The Improvement Trust delivered the possession of the plots to him on 18‑6‑1966. On 13‑1‑1969, the Secretary Improvement Trust vide letter Ex.P2 required the respondent/ plaintiff to pay the price of the plots @ Rs,4000 per acre. The respondent /plaintiff accordingly paid Rs. 4,325 more. He had earlier paid Rs.1,500 as earnest money, the total price of the plots being Rs. 5,

825. Thereafter, the respondents moved application for the execution of the sale‑deed. Before the sale‑deed could be executed, the Improvement Trust, Bahawalpur was abolished and it was succeeded by Municipal Committee, Bahawalpur, the present appellant. The respondent /plaintiff was informed by Municipal Committee, Bahawalpur that he should pay the price of then Plots @ Re.0.75 per sq. ft. He was asked to deposit Rs.41,875 more. On 12‑9‑1972 Dr. Rehmat Ullah respondent filed a suit for declaration that he having already paid Rs.5825 i.e. the price of the plots in accordance with the agreement, the subsequent demand of Rs.41,875, more, by Municipal Committee, Bahawalpur, the appellant /defendant was arbitrary, illegal, without lawful authority and as such not binding upon him. As consequential 'relief, the plaintiff prayed for restraining the defendant /appellant from recovering Rs.41,875 from him or from confiscating the plots. He also prayed for a direction to the defendant/ appellant for Specific Performance of agreement to sell and to get the sale‑deed registered in his favour. The suit was resisted. It was asserted in the written statement that the price of the plots @ Re.0.75 per sq.ft. was assessed on 26‑11‑1969 so, the plaintiff/ respondent was bound to pay the same and that the Secretary Improvement Trust was not competent to fix the price of the plots @ Rs.4,000 per acre and the defendant /appellant was not bound by illegal act of the Secretary. The trial Court framed 5 issues. The parties. led evidence. Dr. Rehmat Ullah plaintiff appeared as P.W.1. He proved and tendered documents Ex.P1 to P.

12. To rebut his evidence, the appellant /defendant proved and tendered in evidence documents Exhs.D1 to D3 and also produced Taj Muhammad, Incharge, Trust Branch, as D. W.

1. The trial Court decreed the suit on 5‑12‑1973. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Municipal Committee, Bahawalpur filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur, which was dismissed on 3‑6‑1975, hence this second appeal.

3. Before me, the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings of the Courts below on issue No.3 alone which is as under:‑ What was the sale price that was fixed between the parties? Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Improvement Trust had assessed the price of the plots @ Re.0.75 per sq. ft. in its meeting and had informed the respondent /plaintiff accordingly vide its letter dated 26‑11‑1969; that the respondent/ plaintiff had already agreed to pay the price of the plots as fixed by the Improvement Trust, so, he was legally bound to pay Rs.41,875 more; that the Secretary of the Improvement Trust had no authority to fix the price of the plots and that the learned Courts below have not properly read document Ex.D3 i.e. minutes of the meeting of the Improvement Trust held on 26‑11‑1969. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the trial. He relied on document Ex.P2 to show that the price of the plots was actually fixed @ Rs.4,000 per acre and that Rs.5,825 being the price of the plots was in fact paid and there stood no due against the plaintiff/ respondent, and as such, there was no legal justification for the appellant /defendant to demand Rs.41,875 from the respondent.

4. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I may observe that issue No.3 "What was the sale price that was fixed between the parties?" is one of fact. The learned courts below have concurrently found that the sale price of the plots was Rs.5,825 which had already been paid by the respondent/ plaintiff to the Improvement Trust, Bahawalpur; that the Courts below have applied their conscious mind to the oral as well as documentary relevant evidence and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived tit by them. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading/ non‑reading of evidence by the Courts below. On examination of letter Ex. P2, it becomes crystal clear that the price of the plots was fixed by Improvement Trust @ Rs.4,000 per acre and as such the price of the plots was Rs.5,

825. From documents Exs. P1 & P3, it is very much obvious that the entire sale price had already been paid by the respondent /plaintiff; that no notice for enhancement of the price of the plots was given to the respondent and he was not heard before issuing letter Ex. P12 requiring him to deposit Rs.41,875; that he was not given an opportunity to raise any objection with regard to the enhancement of the sale price of the plots; that the Municipal Committee/ appellant is bound to honour the letter Ex.P2 issued by the Secretary Improvement Trust, Bahawalpur, that by the time the additional amount was demanded no development scheme had been prepared; that the demand of additional amount of Rs.41,875, in the circumstances of the case, was certainly illegal and arbitrary one and that no material has been pointed before me to show that the finding recorded by the Courts below on this point was in any way erroneous. I do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant do not hold any water. Consequently, the appeal must fail and is, hereby, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑243/L Appeal dismissed.