Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell---Seeking discretionary relief under the Specific Relief Act, 1887---Proof---Claim of the plaintiffs was that the predecessor-in-interest of the...............

2024 MLD 1522

 Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell---Seeking discretionary relief under the Specific Relief Act, 1887---Proof---Claim of the plaintiffs was that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants entered into agreement to sell with regards to the suit-property with them (plaintiffs)---Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate Court---Validity---Both the Courts had failed to exercise vested jurisdiction as per mandate of law, which had resulted in miscarriage of justice as the plaintiffs / respondents were seeking relief under Specific Relief Act and overwhelming as well as unimpeachable evidence was required to prove their stance, but they failed because they did not produce the marginal witnesses of the alleged original agreement to sell and even did not produce any evidence as to when, at what place and in whose presence the bargain with regards to sale of the disputed property took place, which culminated into execution of alleged agreement to sell---In such circumstances, the discretionary relief of specific performance could not be extended to the respondents/plaintiffs---

Civil Revision 1148-13
NIAMAT BIBI VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
2024 MLD 1522

Article 17(2)(a) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 provides that in matters pertaining to financial or future obligations, if reduced to writing, the instrument shall be attested by two men or one man and two women, so that one may remind the other, if necessary, and evidence shall be led accordingly;’ meaning thereby when two persons enter into any agreement pertaining to financial or future obligations, the instrument should be attested by two men or one man and two women, so that one may remind the other. Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 enumerates the procedure of proof of execution of document required by law to be attested;

Civil Revision 1148-13

NIAMAT BIBI VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE

2024 MLD 1522

Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell, execution of---Proof---Claim of the plaintiffs was that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants entered into agreement reement to sell with regards to the suit-property with them(plaintiffs)---Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, which judgment was maintained by the Appellate Court---Validity... Respondents/plaintiffs claimed decree for specific performance of (exhibited) agreement to sell but they (plaintiffs), in order to prove the execution of the same (agreement), had failed to produce its marginal witnesses and only produced two (such) persons in their evidence who were (actually) witnesses of alleged statement having been made overleaf (and not of alleged agreement to sell) incorporated/added after about two and half months of (date of) alleged agreement to sell... Thus, original agreement to sell had not been proved as per requirements of law as enunciated under Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e- Shahada, 11984---Document i.e. exhibited agreement to sell had been maneuvered only to deprive the petitioners (defendants) of their valuable rights---Both the Courts below had misread and non-read evidence of the parties. and had committed material illegalities and irregularities---

Civil Revision 1148-13

NIAMAT BIBI VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE

2024 MLD 1522