IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
 
Civil Appeal No.960 of 2017. 
(Against the judgment dated 19.5.2017 passed by 
the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench in CR No. 
75 of 2010) 
  
 
Saddaruddin (since decd) thr. LRs. 
 Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
Versus  
 
  
Sultan Khan (since decd) thr. LRs etc.  
 Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
 
: Syed Qalb-e-Hassan, Sr. ASC.  
 
In CMA No.2817/20 
 
Mr. Tanveer Iqbal, ASC 
 
For the Respondents,1-5  : Ex parte. 
Date of Hearing  
: 13.01.2021  
 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Sajjad Ali Shah, J.- This direct appeal is filed against 
the judgment of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench whereby 
the said Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction by reversing 
the judgment of the appellate Court restored the dismissal decree 
passed by the trial Court. 
2. 
 
Briefly the appellant on 18.5.2004 filed a suit against 
the respondent seeking declaration regarding his ownership in 
respect of a house, subject matter of the lis. It was claimed by the 
appellant that in the year 1971, through an oral agreement he has 
purchased the subject property from the respondent for a sum of 
Rs.7500/- and the respondent after having received the sale price 
CA 960/2017 
2
handed over the original title documents of the subject property. In 
order to justify filing of suit for specific performance after almost 33 
years the appellant pleaded that the cause of action accrued a week 
before filing of suit when the respondent refused to execute the sale 
deed in favour of the appellant. On the other hand, respondent 
emphatically denied the claim of the appellant and asserted that he 
was inducted as a tenant in the year 1971 and was handed over 
the title documents recently for getting electricity connection and 
now the appellant has turned dishonest and has laid a false claim 
of sale against the subject property. Issues accordingly were framed 
and the trial Court, after allowing the parties to adduce evidence, 
dismissed the suit. The appellant filed an appeal which was allowed 
giving rise to the respondent to approach the High Court by filing a 
civil review petition which, after hearing, was allowed through the 
impugned judgment.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the 
High Court erred in setting aside a well reasoned judgment of the 
appellate Court which has discussed in detail the effect of non-
production of witnesses of sale on account of their death and 
production of one witness of arbitration before whom the parties 
took their dispute when the respondent refused to execute the sale 
deed. The Court had further considered the effect of prolonged 
possession coupled with title documents, installation of electricity 
meter and additional construction which had fortified the 
appellant’s claim of ownership. The High Court therefore, was not 
justified to reverse the well reasoned judgment of the appellate 
Court.  
CA 960/2017 
3
4. 
 
However, we have found that the appellant has neither 
detailed the material contents of the sale agreement in the plaint 
nor the fact that the said oral agreement was witnessed by any one 
or the witnesses of the oral sale had died. Even the plaint does not 
describe the event of jirga which the plaintiff has disclosed in his 
evidence. We have further found the evidence adduced on behalf of 
the appellant to be against the pleadings as in the plaint appellant 
in order to justify filing of suit for specific performance after almost 
33 years of alleged oral sale agreement has asserted that just a 
week before filing of suit, the cause of action has accrued whereas 
PW-3 Muhammad Sharif alleged witness of the arbitration whose 
evidence was recorded on 19.11.2005, asserted that the arbitration 
took place in his shop in March last year i.e. March, 2004 whereas 
the suit was filed by the appellant on 19.5.2004 by asserting that 
the cause of action has arisen a week before filing of suit i.e. May 
2004. Beside, we have noticed that the claim of the appellant 
suffers from major legal flaws; firstly, that the appellant tried to 
establish the oral sale agreement through his evidence by asserting 
two witnesses of sale and further that on refusal to execute sale 
deed a Jirga took place and a witness to affirm the Jirga was 
produced. However, we do not find any of such pleas in the plaint 
and consequently the evidence though neither here nor there but 
still cannot be considered on the basis of principle laid down by 
this Court that the parties are required to lead evidence in 
consonance with their pleadings and that no evidence can be laid 
or looked into in support of a plea which has not been taken in the 
pleadings. A party, therefore, is required to plead facts necessary to 
CA 960/2017 
4
seek relief claimed and to prove it through evidence of an 
unimpeachable character. Reference can readily be made to the 
case of Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan versus Returning Officer, 
PP-12 and others (2015 SCMR 1698) and Binyameen and others 
versus Chaudhry Hakim and another (1996 SCMR 336). The second 
legal flaw is that in cases where the sale is pleaded through oral 
agreement then the terms and conditions which were orally agreed 
are to be stated in detail in the pleadings and are to be established 
through evidence. In such like cases, the plaintiff beside detailing 
subject matter of the sale, the consideration, detail of striking of 
the bargain, name of the witnesses in whose presence the said oral 
agreement to sale was arrived at between the parties and other 
necessary detail for proving the sale agreement as if it would have 
been executed in writing. Reference can readily be made to the case 
of Sheikh Akhtar Aziz versus Mst. Shabnam Begum and others 
(2019 SCMR 524) and Muihammad Nawaz through LRs versus Haji 
Muhammad Baran Khan through LRs (2013 SCMR 1300). Lastly as 
to the claim of the appellant regarding his prolonged possession 
coupled with title documents, suffice it to observe that mere 
prolonged possession even coupled with title document by itself 
does not establish the claim of ownership unless the sale is 
established and in this case the claim of the appellant was met 
with the plea of tenancy and since neither the sale is established 
nor the status of the appellant as tenant, therefore, we would not 
like to further dilate upon the status of the appellant vis-à-vis the 
subject property.    
CA 960/2017 
5
5. 
  
For the foregoing reasons, no case of interference is 
made out. This appeal is consequently dismissed.                
 
    
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
13.01.2021 
A.Rehman 
Approved For Reporting 
