Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 2324 2015 SLD 2324 2015 CLC 1004
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 808-M of 2012, decided on 2nd July, 2014
ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J
Muhammad Parvish Khan for Petitioners. Aziz-ur-Rehman Swati for
Respondents

ABDUL KALAM and anothers

VS

MUHAMMAD and 6 others

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 55---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), 53-A---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17---Suit for specific performance of contract---Time essence of contract---Unregistered document---Effect---Time was essence of contract in the present case---Parties were bound to honour the agreement on or before the cut off date---Each case had its own facts and terms and conditions agreed by the parties were to be considered qua intention of said parties to the agreement---No effort was made on behalf of plaintiffs with regard to payment of consideration amount on or before the cut off date given in the agreement---Plaintiffs had failed to fulfil the obligation of agreement and to justify as to why payment was not made on or before the cut off date mentioned in the agreement---Vendor being not the sole owner of suit land was not competent to transfer the same beyond his share---Person having defective title could not transfer a better title to his vendee---Vendor had no valid title to transfer the suit property, agreement in question could not be acted upon---Impugned sale-deed being unregistered document was to be got registered as value of the same was more than Rs.100---Said unregistered deed would create no title in favour of plaintiffs---Document required to be registered would have no effect in case of its non-registration and reliance could not be placed upon such document---Plaintiffs were not inducted into possession over the suit property on the basis of impugned sale-deed---Provisions of S.53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were not applicable to the present case---Possession of plaintiffs over the suit property was as a tenant-at-will which would not amount to possession under the sale-deed unless specifically mentioned therein and inducted in possession over said property---Impugned sale-deed was defective in nature as description of suit property had not been mentioned in the same---Trial Court had rightly assessed the evidence available on file and non-suited the plaintiffs---Appellate Court had not evaluated the evidence in true perspective and decreed the suit without any…
🔒
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