Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act, 1877---- ----S. 12---Specific performance---Oral agreement to sell immovable property---Proof---Oral agreement is permissible and enforceable under law, but where specific performance of sale of immovable property is claimed solely on basis of oral agreement, heavy burden lies on plaintiff to prove concluded contract through clear, credible, satisfactory and unimpeachable evidence. Cited Cases: • Mrs. Mussarat Shaukat v. Mst. Safia Khatoon and others 1994 SCMR 2189 • Said Wali v. Yaqoot Khan and another PLD 1983 SC 440 • Mst. Sardar Bibi v. Muhammad Bakhsh and others PLD 1954 Lahore 480 (b) Specific Relief Act, 1877---- ----S. 12---Oral agreement to sell---Consensus ad idem---Requirement---Party seeking decree on basis of oral agreement must establish that there was consensus ad idem between parties and that a concluded bargain had in fact been struck---Absence of date, time, witnesses, period for completion, and clear terms of payment weakened plaintiff’s claim and rendered alleged oral agreement doubtful. (c) Specific Relief Act, 1877---- ----S. 12---Agreement to sell---Plaint---Material particulars---Effect of omission---Plaintiff did not mention exact date of oral bargain, names of witnesses before whom agreement was allegedly made, or period fixed for completion of sale---Such omission was material in a suit for specific performance based entirely on an oral agreement. (d) Evidence---- ----Oral evidence---Specific performance of oral contract---Contradictions between witnesses---Effect---Plaintiff produced alleged witnesses to oral bargain, but their statements materially contradicted each other and plaintiff’s own version regarding payment of sale consideration and manner of deposit in bank account---Evidence lacked unimpeachable character and could not sustain decree for specific performance. (e) Evidence---- ----Hearsay evidence---Proof of oral agreement---Witness who was not present at bargain and narrated facts told to him by plaintiff could not be relied upon to prove concluded oral agreement---Such evidence did not inspire confidence. (f) Evidence---- ----Bank account opened in plaintiff’s name---Authority to defendant to withdraw money---Proof of sale consideration---Plaintiff alleged that account was opened to facilitate payment of sale consideration to defendant---Bank Manager admitted in cross-examination that all amounts were deposited by defendant and receipts were produced by defendant---If amounts had been deposited by plaintiff, receipts would ordinarily have remained with plaintiff---Circumstance falsified plaintiff’s version. (g) Specific Relief Act, 1877---- ----S. 12---Specific performance---Part payment of consideration---Proof---Where plaintiff failed to prove by reliable evidence that deposited amounts represented sale consideration under alleged oral agreement, mere opening of account and authorization to defendant to withdraw money did not establish agreement to sell. (h) Transfer of Property / Specific performance---- ----Possession of suit land---Co-sharer already in possession---Effect---Plaintiff claimed possession was delivered to him in part performance of oral agreement---Record showed plaintiff had already purchased portion of total land and was in possession as co-sharer---No document proved that possession of suit land was delivered in consequence of alleged oral agreement---Plea of possession in part performance was rejected. (i) Specific Relief Act, 1877---- ----S. 12---Oral agreement to sell---Cautious approach---Where both parties stand to gain or lose valuable immovable property, oral evidence regarding agreement must be approached with caution---Safer course is to rely on evidence consistent with admitted circumstances and probabilities. (j) Evidence Act, 1872---- ----S. 3---Definition of “proved”---Civil suit---Scope---Civil suit may be decided on material satisfying legal definition of “proved”; however, party relying on oral agreement must still produce evidence of such quality that Court can safely conclude existence of binding contract. (k) Civil procedure---- ----Trial Court and First Appellate Court---Conflicting findings of fact---Preference to appellate finding---Where findings of First Appellate Court vary from those of Trial Court, finding of First Appellate Court ordinarily prevails, though it does not possess same sanctity as concurrent finding---Supreme Court upheld High Court’s reappraisal of evidence. Cited Cases: • Madan Gopal and others v. Maran Bepari and others PLD 1969 SC 617 • Muhammad Shafi and others v. Sultan Mehmood and others 2010 SCMR 827 (l) Specific Relief Act, 1877---- ----S. 12---Specific performance---Trial Court decreeing suit---High Court reversing decree---Supreme Court interference---High Court gave cogent reasons supported by evidence for holding that oral agreement to sell was not proved---No material illegality or irregularity was found warranting interference by Supreme Court. (m) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 185---Appeal before Supreme Court---Reappraisal of evidence---Scope---Where High Court, as first appellate Court, properly appraised evidence and recorded findings that plaintiff failed to prove oral agreement through cogent and unimpeachable evidence, Supreme Court declined interference. Disposition: Civil appeal was dismissed; judgment of Lahore High Court setting aside Trial Court decree and dismissing plaintiff’s suit for specific performance was upheld; parties were left to bear their own costs.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: The case is related to an incident where the victim was allegedly abducted and subjected to sexual assault. The appellant was convicted under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for abduction and Section 376(1) PPC for sexual assault. The prosecution's case was primarily based on the statements of the victim (PW2), a lady doctor (PW4), and a witness named Nawaz (PW3). The victim testified that the appellant forcibly committed rape on her, and this incident led to her abduction. However, the delay of eight days in reporting the incident raised questions about the credibility of the victim's statement. The defense argued that the appellant was falsely implicated due to political enmity. The court found that while the evidence did not prove the case under Section 365-B PPC (abduction) beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant's conviction under Section 376(1) PPC (sexual assault) was upheld. However, considering the delay in reporting and doubts about the victim's statement, the appellant's sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The appeal resulted in a reduced sentence for the appellant on the charge of sexual assault, while the conviction for abduction was overturned due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Summary: Summary pending.