2025 PLD 342 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.

Citation Name: 2025 PLD 342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SIDDIQUI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY through Managing Director VS SHANKER LAL OCHANI S.12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 84---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.53-A---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell---Execution---Proof---Possession of suit property delivered to the vendee---Effect---The respondents (vendees) entered into a sale agreement with the appellants (vendors) for sale of immoveable property---Respondent (vendee) paid earnest money and possession was handed over to him, with the remaining sale consideration to be paid in instalments---Despite full payment, the title was never transferred, constraining the respondents (vendees) to institute a suit for specific performance---The appellants (vendors) contested the suit, claiming that the respondents (vendee) were tenants and that the suit was barred by limitation---Suit was decreed by the Single Judge against which present appeal was instituted---Held: In evidence the respondents (vendees) submitted relevant receipts of payments of sale consideration to the appellants (vendors) and all such receipts were on the letter head of the company being run by appellants (vendors) and were signed by its late proprietor and he was the same person who had signed the agreement to sell---Regarding the signature of the late proprietor/signatory, the respondents (vendees) had got the same examined from the handwriting expert in terms of Art. 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Said expert deposed positively that the receipts contained signatures of late proprietor who had also signed the agreement to sell---Such receipts were in bulk amount and could not be considered mere payments of rent by respondents (vendees)---Only ground taken by appellants (vendors) to defeat validity of such receipts was that they did not bear any date---Mere non-mention of date on the receipts did not invalidate the same or made them redundant in the eyes of law when otherwise contents thereof were established and the payments made through them were not specifically rebutted or refuted by the appellants (vendors) except the plea that they were made in respect of rent regarding which no evidence was put forth---The benefit of S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was also available to the respondents (vendees) as they were put in possession at the time of sale agreement---Single Judge while decreeing the suit took into consideration all pieces of evidence adduced by parties, implication of relevant laws such as Art. 113 of Limitation Act, 1908 and S. 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and concluded, duly supported by reasons, in favor of the respondents (vendees) and there was no justification to reverse the same---Appeal being without merit, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD