MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 4 others vs RAMZAN and 2 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision. The petitioners had initially filed a suit for specific performance and possession based on an oral agreement to sell and an exchange of land. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision and dismissed the suit, a view subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question pertained to the sufficiency and proper appreciation of oral evidence in proving an oral agreement to sell and delivery of possession in the absence of any documentary evidence or receipts. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper reasoning, noting the complete lack of documentary evidence, payment receipts, or proof of delivery of possession. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
- Whether an oral agreement to sell can be enforced in the absence of documentary evidence and payment receipts?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence be interfered with without showing misreading or non-reading of evidence?
ORDER
' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 2-10-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, passed in Civil Revision No,13-D of 1989 whereby the same was dismissed.
2. The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance with a prayer for possession on the basis of an oral agreement to sell in respect to 8 Kanals of land against the respondents. According to them, the respondents had entered into an agreement to sell with the father of the petitioners for the consideration of Rs,16,000 out of which, Rs,10,500 was paid as earnest money while the rest was to be paid' at the time of registration of the sale deed. The father of the petitioners died. Thereafter, the respondents failed to execute the agreement. Later on an amendment was made in the plaint to the effect that in the same agreement an area of 7 Kanals and 12 Marlas was also agreed by the respondents to be exchanged with the predecessor of the petitioners with an area of 6 Kanals and 9 Marlas. The fathers of the petitioners and the respondents were brothers. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 30-6-1966 which was challenged in appeal by the respondents and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 11-12-1988. The petitioners filed revision before the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, on 12-1-1989.
3. Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners has argued that the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned Lahore High Court have not read the evidence properly and have non-appreciated the same which was properly appreciated by the trial Court.
He further argued that though there is no documentary evidence yet the petitioners have brought on record oral evidence of the witnesses to the effect that the sale consideration was paid, an agreement to oral sale was entered into the, parties and the 'Punchait' had also been held in that respect.
4. On the other hand Mr. Khan Muhammad Vehniwal, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents supported the judgments of the learned Lahore High Court and the learned Additional District Judge.
5. We have gone through the impugned judgment which in our opinion is based on proper reasoning. The learned Single Judge in Chambers has discussed the evidence adduced by both the parties in detail and has also considered the aspect of the oral sale agreement properly. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show us, even a single receipt in support of the sale consideration as also any proof that the possession was delivered to them and are in its possession by this time. No revenue receipt is produced to substantiate that they are in possession of the land and cultivating the same.
6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is maintained, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.