What must a buyer prove to enforce an agreement to sell, and why do so many suits fail on readiness and willingness? Our research paper studies 38 judgments of the Supreme Court, the Peshawar High Court and other High Courts (2007 to 2026) on specific performance. This article summarises what they decide.

Proving the agreement

The buyer must prove the agreement through its marginal witnesses and prove that he paid the consideration. Where the property is not specific, section 21 of the Specific Relief Act bars a decree (Muhammad Ghaffar (deceased) v. Arif Muhammad, 2023 SCMR 344).

  • An earnest-money receipt that contemplates a later agreement, does not describe the property, and is unattested and unstamped, is not an agreement to sell (Sheikh Akhtar Aziz v. Mst. Shabnam Begum, 2019 SCMR 524).
  • But a receipt naming the seller, the buyer, the property and the price did contain the ingredients of an enforceable contract (Mst. Noor Jehan v. Saleem Shahadat, 2022 SCMR 918).
  • An unsigned first page defeated enforcement in Akhtar Waheed v. Muhammad Hussain (2025 SCMR 551).

Oral agreements

An oral agreement must be pleaded in detail and proved by the clearest evidence (Hafiz Qari Abdul Fateh v. Ms. Urooj Fatima, 2024 SCMR 1709). The date, time, place and witnesses of the agreement are essential (Ghulam Ali v. Ali Sher, 2026 SCMR 966).

Readiness and willingness: where most suits fail

Willingness means both the capacity to pay within a reasonable time and the intention to buy (Mst. Samina Riffat v. Rohail Asghar, 2021 SCMR 7). Readiness to pay requires proof that funds were actually available (Liaquat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Akram, 2024 SCMR 1883). It is judged on the buyer's overall conduct, not on one late payment (Rawail Khan (deceased) v. Khawaja Muhammad Arif, 2026 SCMR 1268).

Depositing the balance price in court

A buyer who fails to deposit the balance despite the court's direction shows that he was not ready, willing or able to perform (Amjad Javed v. Maqsood Ahmad, 2026 SCMR 1726). The Peshawar High Court has gone both ways on the consequence: dismissal for non-deposit was upheld in Attaullah v. Ghazanfarullah (PLD 2025 Peshawar 45), while the case was remanded in Niaz Muhammad v. Muhammad Naveed Khan (PLD 2025 Peshawar 21).

Is time of the essence?

Where the agreement spells out the consequences of default, time is essential (Muhammad Ashraf Anjum v. Sabir Hussain, 2026 SCMR 36). Relief was refused to a buyer who could not arrange the balance under a fixed-date clause with forfeiture (Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Anwar, 2023 SCMR 1371).

Limitation

The suit must be filed within three years under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. A suit filed nine years after the date fixed for performance was barred (Muhammad Iftikhar Abbasi v. Mst. Naheed Begum, 2022 SCMR 1074).

What about a later buyer of the same property?

A subsequent purchaser is protected under section 27(b) only if he paid in good faith without notice of the earlier agreement, and he carries the initial burden of showing he had no notice (Gulzar Ahmad v. Ammad Aslam, 2022 SCMR 1433). A buyer who knew of the earlier agreement and the pending suit is not protected (Mian Mohammad Mehmood Ahmed v. Safdar Hussain, 2026 SCMR 1572).

The court's discretion

Specific performance is discretionary under section 22: even a proved agreement need not be decreed (Ufaid Gul v. Mst. Farkhanda Ayub Khan, 2025 SCMR 64). Compensation was preferred where the price was not settled and the transaction grew out of a loan (Syed Mazhar Ali Shah v. Qavi Ullah, 2024 YLR 2749).

Getting the earnest money back

  • Token money was refunded where the buyer's tender was not proved (Mst. Noor Jehan, 2022 SCMR 918).
  • Rs. 8.5 million was ordered to be returned after rescission under section 35 (Tasneem Ismail v. Messrs Wafi Associates, 2007 SCMR 1464).
  • A clause requiring the seller to refund double on his own default was enforced (Muhammad Babar Shah v. Muhammad Nadeem, 2026 YLR 1401, Lahore).

Practical checklist: for the buyer

  • Prove the agreement through its marginal witnesses, and document every payment.
  • Show bank records proving you had the funds for the balance.
  • Deposit the balance when ordered, or apply for an extension before the deadline.
  • File within the Article 113 period.

Practical checklist: for the seller

  • Check for a forfeiture clause that makes time essential.
  • Test the buyer's evidence of funds and of tender.
  • Plead limitation where the date fixed has long passed.

For a subsequent purchaser

Document your inquiries and your good faith; knowledge of the earlier agreement defeats your protection.

Read the full research paper

The full paper, with a summary of every judgment, is free to download:

📄 Download the full research paper (PDF)

For more research papers like this one, visit the Resources page:

https://arbitratorandlaw.com/resources

This article is general information on the law, not advice on your own case. Time limits can matter, so speak to an advocate promptly about your own matter.