1989 PLP 1292 (SCMR)

‑‑‑S.12‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Specific performance of agreement to sell‑‑Plaintiffs suit decreed on basis of such agreement‑‑Appellate I Court set aside judgment of Trial Court dismissing plaintiffs suit‑‑Revision petition of petitioner was dismissed by impugned order‑‑Contention that execution of agreement to sell stood established and that defendants were bound by the said agreement‑‑Such aspect of the case in the light of the record was thoroughly examined not only by the Appellate Court but also by the High Court m Revision who found that plaintiff had failed to prove that the predecessor‑interest of defendants had ever agreed to sell away the disputed property to the plaintiff or that he had ever received the sale price or executed the said agreement‑‑Such conclusion was arrived at by the Appellate Court and the High Court after examining the entire evidence on record‑‑Findings of fact having been recorded against petitioner by not only the Appellate Court but also by the High Court, no interference thus was called for‑‑Leave refused. Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1989. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 18 March 1984 whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed. The dispute in this case is between uncle and nephew and briefly the facts are that the petitioner and his uncle Muhammad Bashir predecessor‑in interest of the respondents were in occupation of the disputed house situated in Ward No.8 Railway Road, Shujaabad. Originally the said house was an evacuee property and the Settlement Department eventually transferred the whole of it to said Muhammad Bashir deceased. The petitioner filed a suit on 15 October 1980 contending that on 13 March 19CA Muhammad Bashir deceased had executed an agreement to sell half portion of the said house and had received Rs.550 as earnest money, the transfer price of the whole house being Rs.1,000. 1t way further contended that said Muhammad Bashir would convey the half portion o` the said property as per registered sale‑deed when the PTD would be issued in his favour. Muhammad Bashir then died and PTD was issued in favour of his successors‑in‑interest namely the respondents on 20 February 1980. Since the respondents refused to convey half portion of the said house to the petitioner he filed the said civil suit for specific performance of the contract. The trial Court decreed the suit on 26 May 1983 holding that the execution of the agreement to sell stood proved, but the appeal of the respondents as against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was accepted by the first appellate Court on 8 February 1984. Thereafter the petitioner filed civil revision challenging the judgment of the first appellate. Court which as stated above has been dismissed. Hence the resent petition. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that the execution of the agreement to sell stood established and the respondents were bound by the said agreement executed by their father. But this aspect of the case in the light of the record was thoroughly examined not only by the first appellate Court but also by the High Court which held that the petitioner had failed to prove that the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents had ever agreed to sell away the disputed property to the petitioner or that he had ever A received the sale price or executed the said agreement. This conclusion was arrived at by the aforesaid two Courts after examining the entire evidence on record. Since the findings of fact have been recorded against the petitioner by not only the first appellate Court but also by the High Court no interference is called for. As a result this petition is dismissed. AA/N‑144/S Petition dismissed.