2020 PLP 496 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others — Petitioners Versus MANZOOR AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 496 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ijaz ul Ahsan and Munib Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others — Petitioners Versus MANZOOR AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 496 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 496 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ijaz ul Ahsan and Munib Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 496 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others — Petitioners Versus MANZOOR AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment 24.06.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in R.S.A. No. 09 of 2004)
S. 54
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, R. 5
Agreement to sell immoveable property
Admission by vendor in his written statement
In the present case, the vendor did not deny execution of the agreement to sell
Fact admitted need not be formally proved
Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam 2015 SCMR 21 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AKHTAR, J.
The facts, briefly stated, are that the present respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell regarding the subject property, against the vendor, one Dost Muhammad. The vendor filed his written statement and issue was joined between the parties. During the pendency of the suit Dost Muhammad purported to transfer the property to his wife by way of gift and it was then subsequently sold to the present petitioners who are therefore the real interested, and hence contesting, parties. The suit was dismissed but an appeal against the same was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, who decreed the suit. The present petitioners filed an appeal before the learned High Court, which was dismissed by means of the impugned judgment. Hence this leave petition.
2. Before us the principal point taken for the petitioners was that the agreement to sell was not properly proved in evidence. Indeed, in the leave petition four questions of law are said to arise out of the impugned judgment, and the first two relate to this point. Now, the record and in particular the pleadings of the parties clearly show that the vendor (i.e., the original contesting defendant) did not deny execution of the agreement to sell. A fact admitted need not be formally proved. Reliance in this regard was correctly sought to be placed on Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam 2015 SCMR 21, where (at pg. 25) this settled principle of law has been reiterated. Indeed, the cited judgment was also in relation to a suit for specific performance and the admission of the agreement to sell in the written statement. It was also sought to be argued that the relief of specific performance, being discretionary in nature, could not be claimed as of right and could be withheld in appropriate circumstances. It was submitted that such was the case at hand. With respect, we are unable to agree. Nothing has been shown as would lead to such a conclusion on the facts and circumstances of the case, as established by the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led at the trial. In our view, the learned appellate forums have reached the correct conclusions and the impugned judgment of the learned High Court does not call for any interference.
3. In view of the foregoing, leave to appeal is refused and the petition stands dismissed. MWA/M-8/SC Petition dismissed.