Ghulam Mustafa vs Rasheeda etc.

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH,

RAWALPINDI

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision No. 460 of 2026

Ghulam Mustafa Vs. Mst. Rasheeda etc.

S. No. of Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge, and that of order/ Proceeding Parties or counsel, where necessary Proceeding

08.09.2026 Malik Jawad Khalid, Advocate for the petitioner.

Through this Civil Revision, the petitioner has assailed the judgments and decrees dated 02.03.2026 and 28.04.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court, respectively, whereby his suit for specific performance was partially decreed by the learned Trial Court, while the appeals preferred by both the parties against the said judgment and decree were dismissed by the learned Appellate Court.

2.Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition are that the petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance against the respondents before the learned Trial Court, asserting therein that the respondents had agreed to sell House No.NW-3, situated at Sana Ullah Colony, Saidpur Scheme-II, Rawalpindi, measuring 3 Marlas, for a total sale consideration of Rs.36,00,000/-. Out of the agreed sale consideration, an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- was allegedly paid by the petitioner to respondents No.1 to 5 in the presence of witnesses, whereafter the respondents undertook to transfer the suit property in his favour by 31.10.2016. It was further asserted that possession of the suit property had already been delivered to the petitioner and that the remaining sale consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale transaction. According

C.R.No. 460 of 2026

to the petitioner, despite his repeated requests and readiness and willingness to perform his remaining part of the agreement, the respondents failed to honour their commitment and, instead, threatened to alienate the suit property in favour of some third person.

3.The suit was contested by the respondents through separate written statements wherein the claim set up by the petitioner was controverted. Upon completion of pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the requisite issues and afforded the parties an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective assertions. After recording and appraising the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court partially decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.2026. Feeling aggrieved, both sides preferred separate appeals before the learned Appellate Court, which, after reappraisal of the record, dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2026. Hence, the instant Civil Revision.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the material available on record, particularly with regard to the rights and interest of respondents No.6 to 9. He submits that the entire conduct of the respondents demonstrates collusion and mala fide intention to defeat the lawful claim of the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the suit property admittedly stood in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, namely Boota Masih, and respondents No.1 to 5, claiming themselves to be his only legal heirs, entered into the agreement to sell with the petitioner and received a substantial part of the sale consideration. It is argued that, subsequently, respondents No.6 to 9 appeared on the scene and filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C., claiming themselves also to be legal heirs of

C.R.No. 460 of 2026

deceased Boota Masih; however, despite raising such claim, they failed to enter the witness-box or produce any evidence in support thereof. Learned counsel maintains that such conduct clearly establishes collusion amongst the respondents, who, after receiving a substantial amount from the petitioner, are now attempting to frustrate the transaction and deprive him of the benefit of the agreement to sell. He further submits that respondents No.6 to 9, being the alleged legal heirs of Boota Masih and having knowledge of the agreement to sell, were also under an obligation to honour its terms and could not defeat the petitioner’s rights by adopting a course of concealment and evasion. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned judgments and decrees, to the extent of denying the petitioner’s claim against respondents No.6 to 9, are the result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence and are liable to be set aside.

5.Heard. Record perused.

6.The principal question requiring determination is whether respondents No.6 to 9, who admittedly were not executants of the agreement to sell relied upon by the petitioner, can be compelled to perform the obligations arising therefrom merely on the ground that they subsequently claimed themselves to be legal heirs of deceased Boota Masih and allegedly had knowledge of the transaction.

7.Admittedly, respondents No.6 to 9 were not parties to the agreement to sell executed between the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 5. No material has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner from the record establishing that respondents No.6 to 9 had either executed the agreement, authorized respondents No.1 to 5 to enter into the same on their behalf, subsequently ratified the

C.R.No. 460 of 2026

transaction, or otherwise expressly or impliedly consented to be bound by its terms. During the course of arguments, this Court specifically confronted learned counsel for the petitioner as to the legal basis upon which respondents No.6 to 9, being strangers to the agreement, could be fastened with an obligation to specifically perform the same. The justification offered was that, being the alleged legal heirs of Boota Masih, they had knowledge of the agreement and were acting in collusion with respondents No.1 to 5. The contention, however, is legally misconceived. An agreement to sell creates contractual rights and obligations between the parties thereto and, ordinarily, cannot be enforced against a person who was neither a party to the agreement nor otherwise bound by its terms. Mere knowledge of an agreement does not, by itself, make a person a contracting party, nor does it constitute consent, authorization or ratification of the transaction. Likewise, the mere assertion of a person that he or she is a legal heir of the owner of the property does not, in the absence of proof of succession and the circumstances rendering such person bound by the transaction, automatically impose upon such person a contractual obligation to specifically perform an agreement executed by others. It is equally significant that respondents No. 6 to 9 did not derive title through, or claim under, respondents No. 1 to 5; rather, they claimed an independent and competing status as co-heirs of Boota Masih in their own right.

8.The argument regarding alleged collusion also fails to advance the petitioner’s case. The petitioner was required to establish such allegation through cogent, reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence. However, except for making a general assertion that respondents No.1 to 9 had connived with one another, no substantive material has been brought

C.R.No. 460 of 2026

on record demonstrating that respondents No.6 to 9 had authorized respondents No.1 to 5 to enter into the agreement to sell, had participated in the receipt of the sale consideration, had subsequently affirmed the transaction, or had otherwise undertaken any obligation towards the petitioner. The mere fact that respondents No.6 to 9 filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C., claiming themselves to be legal heirs of deceased Boota Masih, followed by their failure to lead evidence, cannot, by itself, constitute proof of collusion or establish their consent to the agreement in question.

9.It is also significant that the burden to prove the facts upon which the petitioner sought relief against respondents No.6 to 9 squarely rested upon him. The Court cannot substitute conjecture for proof, nor can a contractual obligation be imposed upon a person merely on the basis of suspicion, inference or an allegation of collusion unsupported by convincing evidence. The failure of respondents No.6 to 9 to substantiate their own claim, even if taken at its face value, does not dispense with the petitioner’s independent obligation to prove his entitlement to specific performance against them.

10.Specific performance is a relief founded upon the existence and enforceability of a lawful contractual obligation. Before such relief can be granted against a particular defendant, the plaintiff must demonstrate the legal nexus between that defendant and the contract sought to be enforced. In the present case, no such nexus has been established against respondents No.6 to 9. The petitioner’s case, in substance, seeks to extend the binding effect of an agreement beyond its executants merely because the said respondents are claimed to be legal heirs of the person in whose name the property stood. Such proposition, in the

C.R.No. 460 of 2026

circumstances of the present case, cannot be accepted in the absence of proof that the transaction was entered into with their authority or that they subsequently adopted or ratified the same in a manner recognized by law.

11.Upon an independent appraisal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the learned Courts below have correctly appreciated the controversy and have assigned cogent reasons for declining the petitioner’s claim against respondents No.6 to 9. No misreading or non- reading of any material piece of evidence has been pointed out which could have materially affected the conclusions concurrently recorded by the learned Courts below. Nor has any jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity been demonstrated warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C.

12.Both the learned Courts below have concurrently held, after detailed appraisal of the evidence, that the petitioner failed to prove any illegality, irregularity, jurisdictional defect in the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on evidence available on the record and are neither arbitrary nor perverse. No misreading, non-reading, perversity, or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated. Even otherwise learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to point out the same in the impugned judgments of learned Courts below and it is well settled that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction unless shown to be tainted with material irregularity or illegality and against the law, which is not the case here. Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgments reported as Nasir Ali vs. Muhammad Asghar (2022 SCMR 1054), Aamir Afzal and another vs.S.Akmal (deceased) through L.Rs. and two others (2024 SCMR 1649), Hadayat Khan and others vs. Mst.Nasreen and others (PLD 2025 SC

C.R.No. 460 of 2026

502)and Rana Muhammad Yamin and other vs. Muhammad Jamil (deceased) through L.Rs. and others (2025 SCMR

13.For what has been discussed above, the impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence, or jurisdictional defect warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the instant Civil Revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine.

(Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi) Judge

Approved for Reporting

JUDGE

Riaz Anjum