JAMAL KHAN vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other
This matter originated as a suit for specific performance or, alternatively, for the recovery of money, filed by the respondent, Ghulam Muhammad, against the petitioner, Jamal Khan, and others, following the petitioner's failure to transfer land despite a registered agreement to sell. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence regarding the payment of consideration, specifically concerning an affidavit and a promissory note alleged to negate the receipt of the sale price. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which concluded that the sale price had indeed been paid as recited in the registered sale deed. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any flaw in the lower courts' assessment of evidence, particularly the finding that the impugned documents were forged and that there was no valid basis for the promissory note executed months after the sale. The Court affirmed the decree for the recovery of the sale price, emphasizing the evidentiary weight of registered instruments over subsequent, suspicious documents.
- Can a registered sale deed's recital of consideration be effectively rebutted by subsequent documents alleged to be forged?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence?
- Is a suit for recovery of money maintainable when a contract for the sale of land cannot be specifically performed due to statutory restrictions?
- Act III of 1899
ORDER
1. QAISAR KHAN. J.--Jamal Khan was owner of some land situated in Deh 30 Nasrat, District Nawabshah which could not be Bold without prior sanction of the Collector under the provisions of Act III of 1899. Pir Bux as general attorney of Jamal Khan agreed to sell this land to Ghulam Muhammad for Rs 55,000. A deed to that effect was executed on 13-5-1964 which was registered.
2. According to it the attorney received Rs. 55,000 but possession was to be delivered later on. Jamal Khan, however, sold the land to Syed Mahboob Shah for Rs. 32,000 on 7-5-1965 and Ghulam Muhammad thereupon instituted a suit against Jamal Khan, Pir Bux and Syed Mahboob Shah for possession of the land by specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative prayed for the recovery of Rs. 55,000.
3. The defendant contested the suit and after proper trial the learned Additional District Judge who tried it by his Judgment dated 30-9-1967 held that Pir Bux as attorney of Jamal Khan had agreed to sell the land to Ghulam Muhammad and had received Rs. 55,000 for Jamal Khan. Be, therefore, decreed the suit for Bs. 55,000 with costs against Jamal Khan.
4. Jamal Khan went up in appeal to the High Court against the judgment and decree of the earned Additional District Judge and the High Court by its order dated 3-2-1976 upholding the findings of the lower Court dismissed his appeal.
5. Jamal khan has bled the present petition for special save to appeal against the order of the High Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the lower Courts have not appreciated the evidence properly as they have failed to assess the true value of two pieces of the evidence, namely, the affidavit purporting to have been executed by Ghulam Muhammad before a Magistrate Third Class to the effect that he had not paid any sale price and a promissory note executed by him saying that he had received Rs. 55.000 in trust from Pir Bux. In other words, the contention was that the effect of the two documents read together and properly evaluated would negative the finding of the learned District Judge that the sale price had been paid by Ghulam Mohammad and Pir Bux. We, however find no substance in this assertion, in view of the clear recital in the sale deed that the whole amount of the consideration had been received by Pir Bux. The pronote was executed about sit months after the sale deed and the learned District Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that there was no occasion for Ghulam Muhammad to execute the said deed. There was also a clear finding of the learned Additional District Judge that this document as well as the affidavit were forged documents. Sufficient and proper reasons have been given by the learned Additional District Judge for coming to the above conclusion with which the learned Judges in the High Court have agreed: We do not find any flaw in the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below and under the circumstances we, therefore, dismiss this petition.