Hakim KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs Mst. TALAAT RANA and 7 others

ORDER

' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract against respondents Nos.1 to 8 with the assertion that respondents Nos.1 to 8 are owner of residential plot measuring eight Marlas eight Sarsahi, situated in Khewat No,25 min, Khatoni No,724 min, square No,46, Kila. No,14/2/3, Chak No,224/R.B, Tehsil and District Faisalabad. The full description of suit plot has been given in plaint. The petitioner further contended according to the contents of plaint, respondents Nos.1 to 7 entered into the agreement of sale in respect of above said plot against total consideration of Rs,25000. The agreement was oral agreement because the petitioner/plaintiff was tenant of the respondents Nos.1 to 7. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, at the time of execution of oral agreement, the petitioner paid Rs,4000 on account of earnest money and it was mutually agreed between the parties that balanced amount will be paid by the petitioner/plaintiff to the respondents Nos.1 to 7 in easy instalments within a period of three years, hence he be declared owner of the suit plot.

2. The respondents resisted the suit and filed their written statement and raised a number of preliminary objections including objection of limitation.

3. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed.

Issues.

(1) Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata? OPD

(2) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit against the defendants Nos.1 to 7? OPD

(3) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his conduct and behaviour from filing the suit? OPD

(5) Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious, so, the defendants are entitled for special costs? If so, to what amount? OPD

(6) Whether the suit has not been correctly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction if so, what is the correct valuation? OPD

(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the degree of specific performance of the agreement dated 11-12-1976? If so, on what terms? OPP

(8) Relief.

4. After framing of issues, parties produced their evidence in support of their contentions and vide judgment and decree dated 27-9-1992 passed by Rana Muhammad Shafi, learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Faisalabad dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the order of learned trial Court in appeal which met the same fate and Mr. Muhammad Irshad Sipra, learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide his judgment and decree dated 5-4-2000 dismissed the appeal, hence this revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned lower Courts are against the law and facts of case. He further contends that both the learned lower Courts have erroneously exercised jurisdiction and the learned Civil Judge erroneously decided issues Nos.2, 5, 7 and 8 against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgments and decrees of both the learned lower Courts.

7. Arguments heard, record perused.

8. The petitioner has produced as much as five witnesses in support of his contention. Their statement is not only contradictory but material discrepancies are there and learned trial Court has mentioned at a number of time the discrepancies of statement of witnesses produced by the petitioner/plaintiff and admittedly, the suit plot is under the ownership of respondents Nos.1 to 7.

Exh.P1 receipt of payment of Rs,4000 on account of earnest money could not be proved by the petitioner and a mere assertion that the petitioner has been putting up on the said plot for the last forty years does not create any title in favour of the petitioner because admittedly petitioner's position is of a tenant. According to maxim of equity, once a tenant is always tenant. So far as the question that petitioner has raised some construction over the suit plot, it cannot benefit the petitioner because tenant without permission of the landlord cannot raise any construction.

Making improvement or development on the land of the landowner itself is a ground of ejectment of a tenant. The petitioner could not point out jurisdictional error or misreading and non-reading of evidence during the arguments.

9. In the light of above discussion, the civil revision is devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.