MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell land, which was dismissed by the trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court. The respondent had successfully contended that the petitioner fraudulently obtained his signature on an agreement to sell, misrepresenting it as a lease deed. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in finding the agreement to sell tainted based on the evidence presented, specifically regarding the respondent's illiteracy and the nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the respondent was an illiterate simpleton and that the Khasra Girdawari entries identified the petitioner as a lessee, not a vendee. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to prove that the agreement was read out, explained, and understood by the respondent. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that relief for specific performance can be denied where the underlying document is tainted by fraud and the petitioner fails to establish the validity of the transaction.
- Can specific performance be refused if the underlying agreement to sell is tainted by fraud?
- Is a contract binding if an illiterate party was not provided with an explanation of the document's contents?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a contract?
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner sought specific performance of a contract to sell land. The respondent resisted on the ground that in the garb of getting a lease deed executed the petitioner had subjected him to fraud and got an agreement to sell executed. The trial Court upheld the plea of the respondent so did the first appellate Court and the High Court in second appeal. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 10th of February, 1980.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence produced by the plaintiff- respondent was all hearsay and not worthy of credit. On such an evidence his defence could not succeed. According to the learned counsel it is a case of no evidence.
3. The fact that the respondent has been adjudged by the Courts) to be an illiterate and simpleton is not disputed. It is also not disputed before us that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari show the petitioner not as a prospective vendee but as a lessee. None of the witness whose statement the learned counsel has been able to read out to us stated in specific terms that the agreement to sell the land was read out, explained and was understood by the respondent. In such a situation, the Court could justifiably hold that the agreement to sell, which the petitioner wanted to utilise was a tainted document and relief could be refused to him on its weakness. There is no question of law to be examined further. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.