Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 3,17,79,129(g)

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 3, 17, 79, 129(g)---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell the property claiming that out of total consideration of Rs.840,000/-, earnest money amounting Rs.300,000/- was paid at the execution of agreement, whereas Rs.290,000 and Rs.150,000/- were paid through two checks and only liability of Rs.100,000/- was left---Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that plaintiff was entitled to receive the amounts paid to predecessor-in-interest of the defendants through cheques because payment of the same was proved though not in pursuance of the agreement---Appellate Court decreed the suit---Validity---Respondent in his plaint did not specify the date/time on which the alleged offer as to sale of the suit property was made by the predecessor of the appellants and the parties reached a consensus---Record showed that the offer and acceptance were purportedly made on the same date when the agreement was executed---Testimony of alleged broker who worked to negotiate/arrange the deal between the parties had gone beyond the pleadings inasmuch as he asserted that there were 3-4 rounds of negotiation between the parties to reach the consensus---Said broker was most unnatural witness as it would fly in the face of logic that the respondent involved a third person to finalize a deal between the respondent and predecessor-in-interest of the appellants even though the respondent was tenant thereof since 1984---Issuance of the stamp paper used for execution of the agreement had not been proved through the statement of the stamp-vendor and production of his register---Trial Court rightly observed that no sign/thumbmark was affixed at the back of the agreement, which could establish as to who purchased the same---Marginal witness being interested person (respondents real brother) appeared before Court who remained silent in his examination-in-chief to the extent of amount other than the earnest money and deposed that the deal did not take place in his presence; that he was merely intimated by the respondent as to the deal and was asked to come for attesting the agreement---Contradictions existed in the statements of witnesses…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492