2020 LHC 721 Judgment Regarding Negotiated Agreement of Sale Deed
Muhammad Sharif Sadra Versus Irfan Latif, etc.
Date of hearing: 03.03.2020.
ASIM HAFEEZ, J. Through this single judgment, I propose to decide this RSA and Civil Revision No.1108/2006, both of which are against consolidated judgment and decree dated 13.10.2005 of learned Additional District Judge, Daska District Sialkot, whereby the appeals filed by the appellant and the revision petitioner (respondent No.2 in RSA No.173/2005) were dismissed, while upholding consolidated judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge dated 11.12.2000, which decreed suit for specific
performance of agreement to sell dated 10.11.1998, filed by the respondent No.1 against the appellant, and dismissed suit for
RSA No.173/2005 2 specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.07.1998, filed by the revision petitioner against the appellant.
Facts in RSA No.173/2005.
- Briefly the facts, necessary for adjudication of the matter at hand, are that respondent No.1 claimed to have negotiated
agreement of sale dated 10.11.1998 with the appellant regarding the land, described in paragraph 2 of the plaint, against
consideration of Rs.1,200,000/-, out of which Rs.430,000/- was stated to be paid in cash, as earnest money upon execution of
agreement. And remaining amount of Rs.770,000/- was payable by the target date, i.e. 31.05.1999. As claimed, balance amount of Rs,770,000/- was paid on 01.03.1999, details whereof were endorsed at the back of the agreement, whereby possession was
allegedly agreed to be delivered after harvesting standing crops. As narrated in the plaint, notice dated 03.05.1999 was issued by respondent No.1 to the appellant, seeking performance of contractual obligations and upon failure, respondent No.1 was constrained to initiate civil action. The suit was resisted by the appellant, who categorically denied the transaction, execution of the agreement and receipt of the consideration. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court decreed the claim of the respondent No.1, which decree was unsuccessfully challenged before first appellate court. Hence this second appeal. Download Judgment