| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 1572 2014 SLD 1572 2014 SCMR 1621 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos.285-L and 661 of 2010, decision dated: 24-04-2014. (On appeal against the judgment dated 25-6-2010 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in R.F.A. No.150 of 2007)
NASIR-UL-MULK, GULZAR AHMED AND IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeals Nos.285-L and 661 of 2010, decision dated: 24-04-2014. (On appeal against the judgment dated 25-6-2010 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in R.F.A. No.150 of 2007)
NASIR-UL-MULK, GULZAR AHMED AND IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Dr. Mian ANJUM HABIB and another
VS
WASEEM AHMED KHAN and another Dr. Mian ANJUM HABIB and another vs WASEEM AHMED KHAN and another
Law:
Section:
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell---Terms---Option to cancel agreement to sell by paying back earnest money---Scope---Alteration of terms of agreement to sell by subsequent agreement---Vendee/plaintiff entered into an agreement to buy a certain property from the vendor/defendant---Vendee paid earnest money for the property---Agreement to sell provided that vendor could cancel the agreement by making payment of double the amount of earnest money received---Subsequently both parties entered into another (second) agreement which provided that in case the vendor avoided registry/transfer of property, he would not only have to pay double the amount of earnest money received according to market value, but the vendee would also be entitled to approach the court for obtaining registry/transfer---Vendor refused to transfer the property as a result of which vendee filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Trial Court decreed the suit---Plea of vendor was that suit for specific performance of agreement was not maintainable as he had allegedly returned to the vendee double the amount of earnest money received, thus the agreement to sell stood cancelled---Validity---Second agreement allowed the vendee to approach the court for obtaining registry/transfer---As per said second agreement even if the vendor paid double the amount received by him as earnest money, the agreement to sell would not cease but would remain operative for the vendee to have it enforced through a court of law for obtaining registry/transfer of the property---As a consequence of the second agreement no option remained with the vendor to cancel the agreement to sell---Agreement to sell thus remained alive for its enforcement through a court of law---On filing the suit for specific performance, vendee had also deposited the balance sale consideration in court---Suit for specific performance had been rightly decreed by the Trial Court---Appeal was disposed of accordingly. Amir Alam Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.A. No.285-L of 2010). Syed Najjam-ul-Hassan Kazmi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for…
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