Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 12,22

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

Section: 17,79,129(g)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.12 & 22---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 & 79---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell---Vendor denying execution of agreement---Proof--Production of two attesting witnesses---Mandatory requirement---Vendee producing only one attesting witness---Effect---Agreement to sell cannot be proved in circumstances and discretionary relief cannot be granted---Briefly, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for possession through specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell viz. the suit property; the petitioner/defendant denied executing any such agreement and contested the claim; the suit and connected proceedings travelled through trial and appeal, including remand directions to re-record certain witnesses, culminating in the trial court judgment and decree and then the appellate judgment and decree which set aside the Trial Court s decision and decreed the respondent s suit, leading the petitioner to file the present civil revision under S.115, C.P.C. challenging the legality of the appellate decree---Pivotal question requiring determination before the High Court was as to whether the agreement to sell in question, being disputed, was proved in accordance with Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 so as to lawfully sustain a decree for specific performance/possession, and if not, whether the appellate judgment and decree called for interference in revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115, C.P.C.? ---Held: The petitioner unambiguously denied the execution of any such agreement---Under Art.17 read with Art.79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, plaintiff/respondent was duty bound to prove the genuineness of the said document through cogent, confidence inspiring and independent evidence---Out of two witnesses, only one witness was examined and the petitioner failed to produce the other marginal witness of agreement---No sufficient reason for his non-production was brought on record--Even the respondent/plaintiff did not make any efforts to summon him through Court---The provisions of Art.79 were mandatory and non-compliance…