Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 12

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

Section: 79,81

(a)    Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahdat (10 of 1984), Arts.79 & 81---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Counter suit for cancellation of agreement to sell---Requirement of producing two attesting witnesses, exception to---Scope--Where document is admitted by the executant himself the examination of attesting witnesses is not mandatory---No relief can be granted merely on the basis of pleadings---Deceased-vendor, mother of the appellants, was the owner of a house and on 26.03.2022, she entered into an agreement to sell the property to respondent No.1 (vendee), for Rs. 58,000,000/-, out of which Rs.500,000/- was paid as earnest money and balance was to be paid at the time of transfer---Deceased-vendor failed to transfer the property despite repeated requests---Respondent No.1 (vendee) filed suit for specific performance, possession, and permanent injunction---In retaliation, deceased-vendor filed a suit seeking declaration, cancellation of agreement, and injunction, alleging the agreement was forged and manipulated---After a consolidated trial of both suits the trial court decreed the suit for specific performance in favor of respondent No.1 (vendee) and dismissed the appellant's (vendor's) suit---Held: It was established that execution of agreement was admitted by the appellants at different stages, so there was no need to produce the two witnesses under Art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Article 81 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, was relevant in this regard being an exception to the general rule that where a document was required by law to be attested the same could not be used in evidence unless two attesting witnesses were called for the purposes of proving its execution---The simple reading of Art. 81 of Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984, showed that where the execution of a document was admitted by the executant himself, the examination of attesting witnesses was not necessary---It was contended by appellants that as respondent No.1/ plaintiff failed to prove his case as per law, therefore, the appellants/ defendants opted not to produce any evidence---Without producing the…