2002 SCMR 1266 SUPREME-COURT

Full text

MUHAMMAD TUFAIL VS SHAHID PERVEZ Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Specific Relief Act 1877--9 , ----Ss.12 & 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Specific performance of oral agreement to sell---Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below---Plaintiff was initially tenant in the suit property, eviction proceedings went up to Supreme Court and the .eviction order attained finality---Possession was handed over to the defendant in execution of decree passed by Rent Controller, but plaintiff illegally dispossessed the defendant, against which suit under S.9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, was filed by the defendant which was decreed in his favour and execution proceedings were pending---Plaintiff during the pendency of execution proceedings filed the suit on the basis of oral agreement to sell---Trial Court dismissed the suit and the judgment and decree was maintained by Appellate Court as well as by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction---Validity---Courts below had not ignored any material piece of evidence produced by the plaintiff-.-Courts had appreciated the evidence and it was ejected as the same could not be believed for the reason that after contesting litigation for such a long time and getting possession of the property, it was improbable that the defendant would enter into the agreement of sale---Oral evidence of the plaintiff had been disbelieved on cogent reasons that in such a situation, no man of ordinary prudence would agree to sell the property to the plaintiff and the plaintiff as a man of ordinary prudence would not under mere oral agreement of sale pay earnest money in such circumstances as the parties were neither having cordial relations nor they were enjoying confidence of each other so that the transaction of sale could be struck through oral agreement of sale and payment made without any document ---Evidence had been appreciated and considered in'accordance with the principles of appraisal of evidence---Findings recorded by the Courts below did not suffer from any illegality such as misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence---Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below---Leave to appeal was refused.