Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 115

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 129(g)

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section:

 Summary

The petitioners, as legal heirs of the original purchaser, challenged the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and Appellate Court dismissing their suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 29.01.2016 and decreeing the respondents' cross-suit for possession.

The High Court held that although execution of the agreement and receipt of Rs.5,000,000 as earnest money were admitted, the petitioners failed to prove payment of the additional Rs.4,000,000 allegedly paid later. The endorsements recording these payments were unsupported by reliable witnesses, and the petitioners withheld the sole attesting witness, justifying an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

The respondents, on the other hand, successfully proved through bank records, pay orders, cheques, and bank officials that the earnest money had been refunded and accepted by the original purchaser, who had himself requested cancellation of the agreement. Acceptance and encashment of the refunded amount constituted conduct inconsistent with continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract.