Mst. NOOR JEHAN vs SALEEM SHAHADAT S — 2022 SCMR 918 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. NOOR JEHAN VS SALEEM SHAHADAT S. 12---Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immoveable property---Vendor refusing to accept the sale consideration amount from the vendee---In such circumstances, the vendee seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell is essentially required to deposit the amount in the Court---Vendee has to demonstrate that he is and has at all relevant times been ready and willing to pay the amount, and to show the availability of the amount with him---Vendee cannot seek enforcement of reciprocal obligations of the vendor, unless he is able to demonstrate, not only his willingness, but also his capability to fulfil his obligation under the contract. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 918 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. NOOR JEHAN VS SALEEM SHAHADAT art. 75---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immoveable property---Balance consideration instalment---Pay order---Proof---Vendee had not been able to prove that he tendered to the vendors the payment due, as in the first place neither has he been able to prove that he in fact obtained the pay order, or that he offered the same to the vendors---Neither had the vendee produced the original pay order in his evidence as required in terms of article 75 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 nor had he laid before the Court any other evidence, or material that he in fact obtained the pay order from the Bank as claimed, and/or that the same was lost or destroyed, though it was imperative for the vendee to have proved the loss of the original, as an essential prerequisite for seeking to produce a photocopy of the pay order---Vendee also did not move an application for permission to produce and exhibit a photostat copy of the pay order before the Court; he also did not bother to explain, as to when, how and under what circumstances the pay order was lost, destroyed or misplaced---Vendee could have summoned the relevant record and the concerned officer from the payer Bank which he choose not to; he had also not claimed having lodged any complaint or FIR regarding the loss or theft of the pay order---Document which was not lawfully produced and exhibited in the Court was not worthy of being considered as evidence/proof of a fact---Even otherwise the vendee's evidence with regard to his tendering the pay order to the vendors did not sound credible as there were contradictions in the statements of vendee and his witnesses regarding the date and person/s who went to deliver the pay order to the vendors---Not only the vendee failed in proving that he tendered the payment due, but also did not deposit the balance sale consideration in court, or even the instalment due at the time of filing of his suit for specific performance---Contents of an application filed by the vendee before the High Court to restrain the vendors from alienating or encumbering the suit property showed that the vendee never had the money to pay or deposit in court as required of him---Vendee was not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance sought by him---appeal was allowed, suit for specific performance filed by the vendee was dismissed and the vendors were directed to refund the token/earnest money paid by the vendee. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 918 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. NOOR JEHAN VS SALEEM SHAHADAT S. 12---Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immoveable property---Token receipt---Whether the token receipt qualified as an agreement to sell---Held, that document titled "token receipt" contained all the necessary ingredients essential for it to qualify as a valid and lawfully enforceable contract---Said document unambiguously contained the identity of the seller and the purchaser; the property to be sold had been described accurately in a well-defined manner; it spelled out the agreed sale consideration amount, and stipulated the manner of payment thereof---Parties who executed the document were at consensus ad idem---Document clearly manifested the intention of the appellants to sell and that of the respondent to purchase the subject property---Nothing crucial was left to be settled which could have adversely affected the validity of the contract---Specific performance of the document titled token receipt in the circumstances could not have been avoided on the pretext that it provided for executing a formal agreement---In the present case, the "token receipt" was in itself a complete, and a lawfully enforceable agreement to sell---Appeal was allowed. Head NotesCase Description

Mst. NOOR JEHAN vs SALEEM SHAHADAT S — 2022 SCMR 918 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR