Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 1209 2007 SLD 1209 2007 MLD 1192
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 324 of 2004, decision Dated: 07-05-2007. Hearing Dated: 02-03-2007.
MRS. QAISER IQBAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Samiuddin Sami
Respondent(s) by: Umar Soomro

M. ANWAR QURESHI

VS

JAMILUDDIN FAROOQI AND 5 OTHERS

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12,55

Law: Contract, Act, 1872

Section: 187,226

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 41

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 55---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.187 & 226-Suit for specific performance of agreement and permanent injunction---Defendant, in the present case, could be termed as ostensible owner---Plaintiff was required to take reasonable care for ascertaining the title of the property and when no express or implied consent was advanced by other two defendants (owner and donee) in favour of the said defendant who could be depicted as an' ostensible owner, maxim that "buyer beware" was applicable---In the absence of express or implied consent on behalf of the principal, the principle enshrined, under Ss.187 & 226, Contract Act, 1872 attorney had no authority to act on behalf the principal, who admittedly had no written authority nor had contacted the other two defendants to obtain consent of the real owners---Suit was dismissed in circumstances. 1994 MLD 1059 and 1996 MLD 1123 ref. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 55---Suit for specific performance of agreement and permanent injunction---Scope---Relief of specific performance was a discretionary relief, and in presence of evidence which connoted no relationship between plaintiff and defendants, which was the basis of the claim of plaintiff, such discretion could not be exercised in favour of the plaintiff. PLD 2005 Kar. 280 and PLD 2003 Quetta 142 ref. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ---Ss. 12 & 55---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and permanent injunction---If a person transacts with a lady or his beneficiary of such transaction, it is he (the beneficiary) who is required to prove by positive evidence that at the time of entering into transaction in question independent advice was available to the lady and that she had entered into the transaction with her free consent and full knowledge. Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar PLD 1990 SC 1 ref. (d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 55---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and permanent injunction---Plaintiff, in order to succeed, had to prove free consent and knowledge of…
🔒
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