Citation Name: 2023 YLR 309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Syed ABDUR RASHID vs Rana MUHAMMAD ANWE

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

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Syed ABDUR RASHID VS Rana MUHAMMAD ANWER O. XLI, R. 31---appellate Court, duty of---appellate Court was duty bound to consider the evidence of both sides in its entirety and thereafter arrive at a finding. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Syed ABDUR RASHID VS Rana MUHAMMAD ANWER S. 42---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 10--- Party seeking specific performance of agreement to sell was required to prove firstly that such agreement becomes a contract, enforceable at law, fulfilled certain basic requirements including offer, acceptance, presence of consideration and free consent of the parties; secondly, that the parties reached a consensus qua the sale of the suit property; thirdly, that (in case of issuance of the stamp paper used to reduce the sale transaction into writing) the agreement was proved by producing stamp paper vendor and his register in which it was recorded, establishing the serial number of the stamp-paper used in the transaction, date of issuance/sale of said stamp paper, purpose of sale of stamp paper and, more importantly, the name of the person to whom the stamp-paper was sold; fourthly, that the attesting witnesses were produced to prove the execution/ contents of the agreement; fifthly, that payment of the remaining amount was proved by producing the witnesses in front of whom the same was paid; and sixthly, that willingness to pay the balance amount of consideration at the time of institution of the suit was established. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Syed ABDUR RASHID VS Rana MUHAMMAD ANWER arts. 3, 17, 79 & 129(g)---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell the property claiming that out of total consideration of Rs.840,000/-, earnest money amounting Rs.300,000/- was paid at the execution of agreement, whereas Rs.290,000 and Rs.150,000/- were paid through two checks and only liability of Rs.100,000/- was left---Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that plaintiff was entitled to receive the amounts paid to predecessor-in-interest of the defendants through cheques because payment of the same was proved though not in pursuance of the agreement---appellate Court decreed the suit---Validity---Respondent in his plaint did not specify the date/time on which the alleged offer as to sale of the suit property was made by the predecessor of the appellants and the parties reached a consensus---Record showed that the offer and acceptance were purportedly made on the same date when the agreement was executed---Testimony of alleged broker who worked to negotiate/arrange the deal between the parties had gone beyond the pleadings inasmuch as he asserted that there were 3-4 rounds of negotiation between the parties to reach the consensus---Said broker was most unnatural witness as it would fly in the face of logic that the respondent involved a third person to finalize a deal between the respondent and predecessor-in-interest of the appellants even though the respondent was tenant thereof since 1984---Issuance of the stamp paper used for execution of the agreement had not been proved through the statement of the stamp-vendor and production of his register---Trial Court rightly observed that no sign/thumbmark was affixed at the back of the agreement, which could establish as to who purchased the same---Marginal witness being interested person (respondent's real brother) appeared before Court who remained silent in his examination-in-chief to the extent of amount other than the earnest money and deposed that the deal did not take place in his presence; that he was merely intimated by the respondent as to the deal and was asked to come for attesting the agreement---Contradictions existed in the statements of witnesses as to availability of the earnest money at the time of execution of agreement---Evidence adduced by the respondent indicated glaring contradictions, which propelled to the conclusion that the payment of earnest money had not been proved through preponderance of evidence---alleged signatures at the back of the cheques were never got compared to ascertain whether the same were also that of predecessor-in-interest of the appellants---No independent/corroborative witness to the payment through cheques was available---alleged scribe produced in witness box but name of the same was not reflected in the agreement as scribe---Non-production of the stamp vendor coupled with the abstinence/failure to produce the register where the issuance of the stamp paper was recorded, bearing signatures of the buyer of said stamp paper revealed that one of the best pieces of evidence as to who bought the stamp paper had been withheld by the respondent---Bare reading of the alleged agreement itself revealed that the same had been structured on the basis of reverse engineering---appeal was allowed accord-ingly.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Syed ABDUR RASHID vs Rana MUHAMMAD ANWER O — 2023 YLR 309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR