1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The appellant with the leave of the Court has challenged the judgment passed by the learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in appeal whereby the suit for specific performance of contract in respect of immovable property was decreed against the appellant and has been maintained throughout.
2. ' Muhammad Yousaf predecessor-in-interest of the respondent filed a suit against the appellant for specific performance of agreement entered into on 2-3-1968 by which the appellant had agreed to sell the house in Daska, District Sialkot for a consideration of rupees six thousand. It was alleged that on conclusion of the agreement rupees five hundred were paid to the appellant as earnest money for which a receipt was executed by him. The appellant handed over the title deed of the disputed house and also a form duly signed by him for submission to the Income Tax Authorities for issuance of a 'no-objection certificate'. However, after expiry of 15 days the respondent came to know that the appellant was resilihg from the agreement and was intending to sell the house to some other person. The respondent served a notice demanding registration of sale-deed but in reply the appellant asked for the copy of the receipt which was sent to him. The appellant sent a registered letter enclosing a draft of Rs,500. The respondent claimed that there was concluded contract between the parties and he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. In the written statement the appellant denied to have entered in any concluded contract. He, however, stated that there were negotiations between the parties for sale of the house but as the respondent did not accept the terms and conditions, the contract did not conclude. As regards the payment of rupees five hundred, it was stated that they were kept as a trust money which would have been adjusted in the sale consideration on conclusion of the agreement. As the sale agreement had not concluded the same was refunded. The learned Civil Judge held that the appellant had entered into a concluded contract for sale of the house for Rs,6,000 and Rs,500 were deposited with, him as earnest money. 1 he suit was accordingly decreed. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. The revision application before the High Court was also dismissed by the impugned judgment. Leave was granted to consider the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that vague recital in the receipt could not form basis of a finding that an agreement of sale had been entered into by the parties.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties who have taken us through the entire evidence.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no concluded contract between the parties as the receipt did not mention the terms and conditions on which the house was to be conveyed. It does not specify the sale consideration and the property sought to be purchased by the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the parties had entered into an oral agreement and the receipt was merely a document to show that the earnest money had been paid in pursuance of the said agreement. In the wake of this controversy between the parties the first question to be determined is whether there was a concluded agreement between the parties. The burden was upon the respondent. Unless there is a concluded contract between the parties, no specific performance can be granted. The respondent's counsel relied upon the oral evidence of the parties, the receipt, notice and the conduct of the appellant in delivering the title documents for which no plausible explanation was offered. It is correct that there is no written agreement between the parties for sale of the house. The receipt executed by the appellant cannot be termed as an agreement for sale. It merely shows that a sum of Rs,500 was paid by the respondent as an earnest money in respect of house situated on Sambrial Road, Ibrahim Wala, District Sialkot. Therefore this document can only be a corroborative piece of evidence to show that this amount was paid in pursuance of an oral agreement. The oral agreement has been proved by the statement of the respondent and P.W.3 Muhammad Sharif who was present at the time the appellant had agreed to sell the house received Rs,500, executed the receipt and delivered the title documents to the respondent. He in clear terms had stated that the sale consideration was settled at Rs,6,000. He has supported the statement of the respondent and there is nothing on record to show that he was an interested witness or had made any false statement.
5. ' Besides this there is ample evidence to prove the oral agreement. The conduct of the appellant is an important factor in deciding this issue. Admittedly, he had delivered the title documents and duly signed application form for obtaining income-tax clearance certificate. In the written statement he had merely denied and it was in evidence that he came out with the explanation that he had delivered these documents to the respondents for delivering to his father in whose favour he wanted to transfer the house due to domestic dispute. He does not state that the respondent was his family friend or closely related to him and for that reason he had sought his help in his domestic dispute. The explanation offered is not only belated but completely false and frivolous.
6. ' It is a normal practice that such documents are usually delivered to the purchaser after a concluded agreement. He does not say that these documents were delivered to the respondent so that it may be ascertained that the appellant had a clear title to sell the property. Again when a notice was sent to the appellant calling upon him to specifically perform the agreement he did not come out with all these facts, he remained content with only refunding the amount to him. In any case all the three Courts have given a concurrent finding of fact that there was an oral agreement by which the appellant had agreed to sell the house to the respondent. The same cannot be disturbed at this stage and particularly on the state of record and evidence produced by the parties.
7. ' The question arises whether an oral agreement can be specifically performed. Section 4 of the Specific Relief Act provides that except where it is otherwise expressly enacted nothing in the Act shall be deemed to give any right to relief in respect of any agreement which is not a contract. The object of this provision is to exclude agreements which are not enforceable by law. Section 2(h) of the Contract Act defines contract as 'an agreement enforceable by law'. An agreement or contract made between the competent parties with their consent for lawful consideration and lawful object is binding on the parties. The legislature thus intends that there should be a concluded valid contract. The contract can be in writing as well as oral. Oral agreement is valid C and enforceable as a written agreement provided it fulfils all the requirements of a valid contract. Reference can be made to All Muhammad Khan v. Riazuddin Khera PLD 1981 Kar. 170 and Kumar Gokul Chandra Law v.
8. Haji Muhammad Din AIR 1938 Cal.
136. There is no bar in law that only those contracts can be specifically enforced which are in writing. An oral agreement which is valid in law, is enforceable and specific performance of such agreement can be granted. The oral agreement as spelt out from the evidence on the record proves the object of the agreement, the consideration and that there were consensus and idem.
9. The appeal is dismissed.