MUKHTAR AHMAD and another vs Rana GHULAM RASOOL
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld a trial court decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The petitioners, as sellers, did not deny executing the agreement but alleged that the respondent had interpolated the document to reduce the sale consideration from Rs. 4,84,750 to Rs. 3,84,750. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their factual findings regarding the validity of the agreement and the alleged interpolation. The Supreme Court observed that the scribe of the document, who testified, confirmed the corrected figures, and the petitioners failed to duly prove their version of the document (Mark-A). Furthermore, the Sub-Registrar's certificate supported the respondent's version. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were based on a careful and thorough appraisal of the evidence, showing no misreading, non-reading, or misconstruction of material evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decision to enforce the agreement as presented by the respondent.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the terms of an agreement of sale can be disturbed in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does the failure to duly prove a document relied upon by a party undermine their claim of interpolation in a contract?
- Can a registered agreement of sale be enforced when the scribe confirms the correctness of the entries therein?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 15-1-2001 of the Lahore High Court whereby appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the respondent for specific performance of the agreement of sale has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners when questioned, admitted that the petitioners-sellers did not deny the execution of the agreement of sale, the specific performance of which was sought by the respondent whereas their case was that the sale consideration was fixed at Rs,4,84,750 out of which an amount of Rs,1,70,000 was paid to them and the remaining amount was to be paid before the Registrar at the time of registration of the sale-deed. The said agreement of sale was got registered but before presentation of the document for registration, according to the petitioners, the respondent had made interpolation, and made the said agreement for a consideration of an amount of Rs,3,84,750 out of which an amount of Rs,1,70,000 was shown to have been paid as earnest money.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention referred to a document (Mark-A) which according to him was the original agreement of sale executed between the parties in which the sale consideration was shown as Rs,4,84,750 and earnest money paid was Rs,1,70,000 whereas in the same document which was subsequently registered, the sale consideration was shown as Rs,3,84,750 by interpolation and the amount of earnest money as Rs,1,70,000. The document which was registered was produced in evidence by the respondent.
4. The scribe of the document appeared as a witness on behalf of the respondent who was cross- examined in relation to the corrections, alleged as interpolation, made in the figures of the amounts in the body of the document. No question appears to have been made to the entry regarding the last line of the agreement in which it was written that the corrected amount of consideration was Rs,3,84,750 Mark-A, copy of the document which was produced by the petitioners appears to have not been duly proved. In the certificate of the Sub-Registrar on the agreement of sale, the amount of Rs,1,70,000 was stated to have been paid and the remaining entries as corrected in the document were duly proved by the scribe.
5. The findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below that agreement of sale was executed for a considuation of Rs,3,84,750 out of which an amount of Rs,1,70,000 was paid as earnest money have not been proved to have suffered from any misreading or non-reading or misconstruction of any material piece of evidence, whichin our view are based on correct, careful and thorough appraisal of the B evidence.
6. Resultantly, this petition is accordingly dismissed and .