Karam Elahi vs Ahmad Din art — 2024 MLD 1886 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Karam Elahi VS Ahmad Din art. 129(g)---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---agreement---Proof---Consenting written-statement submitted by alleged vendor without appearing in witness-box---adverse presumption---Petitioner(defendant / bona fide purchaser) assailed decree concurrently passed---Validity---actual dent caused to the case of the petitioner was due to non-appearance of respondent (defendant)/vendor in the witness box---article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, permits the Court to draw an adverse inference against the party who fails to appear in the witness box---Therefore, no matter how strong (consenting) the written statement filed by respondent /vendor was, it lost its efficacy as he did not make himself available for cross-examination and his written statement could not have been treated as substantive piece of evidence---Sole evidence of the petitioner was inconsequential as whatever he deposed was hearsay---Respondent being plaintiff discharged his onus by appearing in the witness box personally and producing attesting witnesses as well as a scribe---Conversely, the vendor/respondent failed to present himself for cross-examination and this was fatal to the case of the petitioner as well as respondent/vendor----appearance of the vendor in written box was also imperative as respondent/plaintiff in his evidence had placed on record (got exhibited) the criminal proceedings and said proceedings were decided in his favour---Therefore, the failure of the respondent /vendor to appear in witness box and depose to rebut the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff had serious consequences as under the law it amounted to admission---Deposition of the petitioner being subsequent purchaser qua the subject matter agreement to sell was just hearsay as he was not in a position to depose with respect to the existence and contents of the subject matter agreement to sell---Impugned judgments and decrees did not warrant any interference, in circumstances---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1886 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Karam Elahi VS Ahmad Din arts. 17 & 79---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---agreement written on a simple / insufficiently stamped paper---Proof---Petitioner( subsequent /bona fide purchaser) assailed decree concurrently passed---Contentionof the petitioner was that the subject matter agreement to sell was on a simple paper was insufficiently stamped paper---Validity---It is not mandatory that an agreement to sell be written or printed on a stamp paper as the law fully acknowledges even an oral agreement; in case of non-appearance of attesting witnesses to an agreement to sell, the contents and existence of said document cannot be proved in terms of art. 17 and art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which is mandatory---Record revealed that respondent/plaintiff appeared as witness and produced (got exhibited) subject matter agreement to sell and deposed that three persons signed the document as marginal witnesses---Respondent /Plaintiff also deposed that his son was scribe of the subject matter agreement to sell---attesting witnesses as well as the scribe appeared as three witnesses of the plaintiff whose examination-in-chief was found consistent, and during cross-examination, the petitioner failed to impeach or discredit the testimony of said witnesses---Therefore, through oral evidence and by producing scribe and marginal witnesses the plaintiff /respondent discharged his onus as to existence and contents of the subject matter agreement to sell---attack on the subject matter agreement to sell by the petitioner that it had no sanctity in the eyes of law was also ill-foundedly premised---In the present case, at maximum, the subject matter agreement to sell was on a simple paper or insufficiently stamped paper---Under the law a contract can be in writing or oral and oral agreement would be valid and enforceable just like a written agreement provided it fulfills the requirements of valid agreement---Therefore, the argument of the petitioner was meritless---Impugned judgments and decrees did not warrant any interference, in circumstances---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1886 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Karam Elahi VS Ahmad Din S.52---Bona fide / subsequent purchaser during pendency of suit---Lispendens, principle of---Scope---A challenge by a subsequent purchaser would be hit by the principle of lis-pendens---Such purchaser will sink and sail with the vendor and does not have a locus standi to take up cudgels for and on behalf of the defendant or the vendor.

Karam Elahi vs Ahmad Din art — 2024 MLD 1886 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD