| Case ID |
04d24362-7fe3-43b4-b775-4a2655ec0021 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
R.F.A. No. 5 of 2010 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 24, 2010 |
| Hearing Date |
Nov 24, 2010 |
| Decision |
The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant, who was seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell. The court found that the appellant failed to provide cogent and reliable evidence to prove the genuineness of the agreement and the payment of sale consideration. The evidence presented raised serious doubts about the execution of the document, particularly regarding the vendor's capacity and the circumstances surrounding the agreement. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the beneficiary of the transaction to demonstrate that it was executed freely, without coercion or undue influence, especially when dealing with elderly or ill individuals. Consequently, the trial court's decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs. |
| Summary |
In the case of R.F.A. No. 5 of 2010, the Peshawar High Court addressed a dispute regarding a specific performance of an agreement to sell a property. The appellant, Said Amin, claimed to have entered into an agreement dated 20-10-2006 to purchase property for Rs. 57,78,750 from the predecessor of the respondents, Mst. Nayab and others. The trial court dismissed the suit on grounds of insufficient evidence, and the appellant appealed the decision. The High Court, while reviewing the case, highlighted the critical importance of proving not just the execution of the document but also its contents, especially when the execution is denied by the other party. The court noted inconsistencies in the evidence, including the absence of a separate receipt for the substantial payment and the lack of delivery of possession despite the alleged payment. Additionally, the court pointed out that the vendor, who was in poor health, had signed the agreement in a manner that raised doubts about the transaction's legitimacy. The court concluded that the appellant did not meet the burden of proof required in such cases, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. This case underscores the legal principles surrounding property transactions involving vulnerable individuals and the necessity of clear, credible evidence to support claims of contractual agreements. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Ejaz Afzal Khan, C.J.,
Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, J
|
| Lawyers |
Amjad Ali for Appellant,
Muhammad Shoaib Khan for Respondents
|
| Petitioners |
Said Amin
|
| Respondents |
Mst. Nayab and others
|
| Citations |
2011 SLD 566,
2011 CLC 309
|
| Other Citations |
Mst. Marrayum Bibi v. Khan Muhammad (deceased) through Legal Heirs and others 2004 YLR 288,
Muhammad Nazir v. Khurshid Begum 2005 SCMR 941
|
| Laws Involved |
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
|
| Sections |
72,
117,
120,
12
|