MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN vs Syed ATHAR HUSSAIN S — 2025 CLC 823 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN VS Syed ATHAR HUSSAIN S. 100---Second appeal---Concurrent findings of fact by courts below---Interference in such findings by Second Appellate Court---Scope---Order/judgment passed by the two courts below were well reasoned and in accordance with law, thus, there was no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of two courts below, which were outcome of a proper application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 823 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN VS Syed ATHAR HUSSAIN Ss. 12 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), 78, 79 & 117---Suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell---Denial of existence of relationship of seller and buyer---Burden to prove---Under Art. 117 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (Order), the burden to prove an agreement either in writing or verbal rests on the party who claimed the same and not on the opposite party---Respondent had denied the existence of relationship of seller and purchaser, thus, Art.78 of the Order required the appellant to prove the execution of oral agreement as mandated by Art.79 of the Order, which provides that in order to prove an instrument which by law is required to be attested, it has to be proved by two witnesses. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 823 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN VS Syed ATHAR HUSSAIN O. VII, R.11(a) & (b)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.12, 28 & 54---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.78, 79 & 117---Rejection of plaint---Oral agreement to sell on WhatsApp and email messages with son of the actual owner---Appellant instituting a suit for specific performance of the oral agreement---Non-mentioning of details qua oral agreement in the plaint---Effect---Contention of the respondent/actual owner was that such a suit without an agreement and authority in favour of his son to enter into an oral agreement was barred---Validity-Respondent was the sole and absolute owner of the suit plot and the appellant had failed to place on record any evidence that respondent (actual owner) ever intended or entered into any sale transaction in respect of the suit plot with the appellant either through WhatsApp messages or emails---Entire record of conversation through WhatsApp messages and emails was between appellant and son of actual owner, who was not competent to enter into a sale transaction with the appellant, more particularly when the actual owner in his written statement had specifically stated that he never authorized his son to fetch a buyer or enter into an agreement to sell in respect of the suit plot on his behalf---Appellant had failed to place on record any evidence as to oral transaction between him and the actual owner of the suit plot---Where sale was pleaded through oral agreement then the terms and conditions which were orally agreed were to be stated in detail in the pleadings---In such like cases, a party besides detailing subject matter of the sale and consideration was also required to provide other necessary details such as striking of the bargain, and names of the witnesses in whose presence the said oral transaction for sale was arrived at, which were the essential requirement for proving an oral agreement to sell---Not a single penny had been paid by appellant towards sale consideration and an amount, alleged to have been paid by the appellant, was paid to the Society towards dues and not as part of sale consideration---Appellant failed to make out a case for specific performance of an agreement to sell---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN vs Syed ATHAR HUSSAIN S — 2025 CLC 823 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC