Akhtar Waheed vs Muhammad Hussain and others
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from cross-suits regarding an agreement to sell: the appellant filed a suit for specific performance, while respondent No. 1 filed a suit for cancellation of the document. The Trial Court initially directed the return of earnest money with an equal additional sum, while dismissing the cancellation suit. The Appellate Court subsequently decreed the appellant's suit for specific performance in full. However, on civil revision, the High Court overturned the lower appellate decree, dismissing the suit for specific performance and decreeing the suit for cancellation. The core legal issue pertained to the enforceability of a two-page agreement to sell where the first page lacked signatures or thumb impressions of the parties and witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that without signatures or thumb impressions on the first page, the document could not be relied upon to grant a decree for specific performance. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Can a suit for specific performance be decreed on the basis of a multi-page agreement to sell if the first page lacks signatures or thumb impressions of the parties and witnesses?
- Whether an agreement to sell is legally enforceable when its material terms appear on an unsigned page?
- Does the absence of signatures or thumb impressions on a page of an agreement justify decreeing a cross-suit for cancellation of the document?
ORDER
AM IN UD DIN KHAN, J. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell whereas respondent No.1 ('the respondent') filed a suit for cancellation of the said document. The Trial Court was pleased to decree the suit of the appellant vide judgment and decree dated 14.06.2012 directing the respondent to return earnest money of Rs.230,000/- as well as equal amount thereto i.e. Rs.230,000/- to the appellant, whereas, suit of the respondent for cancellation of the said document was dismissed. The Appellate Court through a consolidated judgment dated 29.10.2016 accepted the appeal filed by the appellant and decreed the suit for specific performance whereas the appeal of the respondent was dismissed. The respondent filed a civil revision which was allowed, through the impugned judgment whereby suit for specific performance was dismissed while suit for cancellation of document was decreed. Hence this appeal.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length. Learned counsel for the respondent is available as a caveator. The alleged agreement consists upon two pages; first page does not contain signatures/thumb impressions of any of the parties as well as witnesses, while page-2 contains signatures/thumb impressions which were also exhibited as Exh.PW-1 /5, Exh.PW- 1/8, etc. during the statement of the plaintiff/appellant. If first page of agreement is taken out of consideration, as it does not contain signatures/thumb impressions of any of the parties as well as of the witnesses, the suit for specific performance cannot be decreed. We have carefully gone through the findings recorded by the learned High Court whereby Civil Revision filed by respondent was accepted and his suit for cancellation of document was decreed whereas suit of the appellant for specific performance was dismissed. The learned High Court has thoroughly evaluated the documentary; as well as oral evidence and on the basis of true interpretation of the evidence came to a conclusion which is in the light of law declared by this Court.
3. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the High Court is correct and we cannot disagree with the same. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.