Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 90 2015 SLD 90 2015 PLD 187
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 261-L of 2014, decided on 1st January, 2015
MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, JJ

FARZAND ALI and anotherVsKHUDA BAKHSH and others

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12,22

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 22---Specific performance of an agreement to sell---Decree---Discretion of court---Scope---Grant of specific enforcement of an agreement to sell pertaining to an immovable property was a discretionary relief---Even in cases where the agreement to sell was validly proved by the plaintiff, the courts may refuse to allow the relief of specific enforcement---Court was neither obliged to grant the relief of specific performance nor could the plaintiff claim it as a matter of right. Liaqat Ali Khan and others v. Falak Sher and others PLD 2014 SC 506; Mst. Mehmooda Begum v. Syed Hassan Saijad and 2 others PLD 2010 SC 952; Shakeel Ahmed v. Mst. Shaheen Kousar 2010 SCMR 1507 and Muhammad Sharif and others v. Nabi Bakhsh and others 2012 SCMR 900 ref. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 22---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 52---Suit for specific performance---Principle of lis pendens---Scope---Consent decree, authenticity of---Scope---Agreements to sell---Dispute between two rival vendees (appellant and respondent) inter se against a common vendor---Both vendees filing suits for specific performance of their respective agreements against common vendor in respect of the same property---During pendency of appellant's suit for specific performance, vendor entered into a compromise with the respondent, whereafter a consent decree was passed in the respondent's suit---Sale deed was executed and registered by the vendor in favour of the respondent despite pendency of appellant's suit---Legality---Although appellant was not a party to the suit filed by the respondent, but it was not established that the respondent was aware of the agreement to sell between appellant and vendor or that appellant was deliberately not arrayed as a party---Suit filed by respondent was decreed through a compromise between the respondent and vendor, wherein the vendor expressly and unambiguously acknowledged, accepted and admitted the agreement to sell between him and the respondent---Subsequent to such consent decree sale deed was executed and registered by the vendor in favour of the respondent---Even if it was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register