2022 SCMR 616
S. 12---Suit for specific performance of an Agreement to sell immoveable property---Agreement to sell---Proof---To prove the Agreement to sell, respondent-vendee appeared as a witness and reiterated all facts that had been narrated in the plaint; he was subjected to lengthy cross-examination which did not shake his testimony---Marginal witness, the stamp vendor and the petition writer were also produced as witnesses by the respondent-vendee---All said witnesses stood firm on their testimony and duly supported the case of the respondent---On the other hand, the appellant-vendor opted to appear as the sole witness; he never produced any corroborative evidence to show that possession had forcibly been taken from him nor could he establish that the Agreement to sell which constituted the basis of the suit for specific performance was forged---If appellant-vendee was forcibly dispossessed of his property, question was as to why he did not initiate any proceedings for retrieval of possession of the same before any forum---Appellant-vendee admitted that he had worked as a Patwari in the Revenue Department, therefore, it was not believable that despite having been forcibly dispossessed he did not initiate proceedings before any forum and no explanation had been offered as to why he silently accepted forcible possession of his property---Lack of action on part of appellant-vendee lent support to the stance of respondent that possession was voluntarily handed over to him as part performance of the Agreement and on receipt of a substantial portion of the sale consideration of the property---On basis of the case record it stood established that a sum of Rs.6,25,000 had been paid by respondent as part payment of the sale consideration and a sum of Rs.3,75,000 remained outstanding which was also deposited in the Trial Court on directions of the High Court---Suit for specific performance of an Agreement was rightly decreed---Appeal was dismissed.
0 Comments