Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 2503 2002 SLD 2503 2002 CLC 433
Lahore High Court
Civil Revisions Nos. 481-D and 480-D of 1984/BWP, decided on 27th September, 2001.
TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Malik ELLAHI BUX and others

VS

MUHAMMAD ASLAM

Law:

Section:

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 55---Time as of the essence of contract---Principles---Where specific dates were mentioned for payment of instalments, such specific stipulation, in the absence of any other material on record, would show that the intention of the parties was to treat time as of the essence of the contract. Muhammad Sharif v. Mst. Fajji 1998 SCMR 2485 ref. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 53-A---Benefit of S.53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882--­Principles---In order to seek such protection or benefit, the petitioners must show that the possession is in pursuance of an agreement to sell which still subsists---Having committed default in performing his part of contract, a vendee cannot continue to remain in possession in the garb of protection of agreement to sell. (c) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 53-A---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.55---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Specific performance of agreement to sell---Time as of the essence of contract, claiming benefit of S.53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Agreement to sell contained specific time frame for payment of consideration amount---Plaintiffs failed to pay the amount accordingly---Ground on which the non-payment of balance price was sought to be justified had been found against the plaintiffs by both the Courts below---Effect---Where the plaintiffs by their own conduct were responsible for rescission of the sale agreement, their possession had become unauthorized and unlawful---Benefit of S.53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, could not be extended to the petitioners---Appellate Court had rightly reversed the finding of Trial Court and dismissed the suit---Discretion exercised by the Appellate Court was unexceptionable and High Court declined to form a different view---Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were upheld in circumstances. Zaheer Ahmad and another v. Abdul Aziz and another 1983 SCMR 559; Dr. Aftab A. Khan v. Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others 1984 CLC 3158; Isso and another v. Muhammad Ismail and 2 others 1992 MLD 1787; Messrs Pioneer Housing Society (Pvt.) Limited v. Messrs Babar & Co. PLD…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492