Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 1314 2015 SLD 1314 2015 PLD 481
Sindh High Court
Suit Nos.261 and 701 of 2007, decided on 1st December, 2014.DATE of hearing: 11th September, 2014
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J

S.M. SHOAIB BAGHPATI--PlaintiffvsUMAR GUL AGA and 3 others----Defendants

Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 55---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Decrease in market value of suit property---Damages, claim for---Advance amount, forfeiture of---Scope---Mesne profits---Scope---Vendee could seek relief of specific performance of contract and also for damages in addition, or as substitution---Vendor had himself confined his rights to the extent of forfeiture of advance amount and he was normally entitled for the same---Seller could also claim damages in addition, but such damages should be specifically pleaded and should be proved---Mere words of decreased in market value of property in question would not be sufficient to entitle seller for such damages---Burden was upon the defendants to prove their claim for damages---Nothing was on record except a reference to admission of the plaintiff that market value of suit property had reduced---Defendants could not be held entitled for damages in absence of any evidence with reference to reduction in market value---Delivery of possession and change of ownership through a registered document would complete the sale---One should possess a clear title in his favour to execute a registered sale deed and should be capable to put buyer into possession of property---Plaintiff had failed to establish that he was prepared for obtaining title on relevant date from the defendants who had marketable title---Defendants were competent to resort to penal clause of agreement i.e. forfeiting the advance money---Agreement had only permitted forfeiture of 'advance money' but not whole payment made towards sale consideration---Defendants were entitled to forfeit such amount only, not the other payment subsequently made by the plaintiff as part payment---Second agreement did not change the 'status and nature of the advance money'---Defendants were bound to return the amount so received by them after deducting 'advance money' and to establish that they were unauthorizedly kept out of possession of suit property---Failure of defendants to take possession or asked the plaintiff to deliver the same who, otherwise, was ready to deliver possession of suit…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register