Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

Law: Contract, Act, 1872

Section: 10,17,36,37,55,65

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---.--- ---.----S. 12---.---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 65, 36, 37, 17, 10 & 55---.---Suit for specific performance of contract---.---Interim order restraining creation of third party interest---.---Effect---.---Fraud---.---Interim order restraining the creation of third party interest with regard to suit property was in field---.---Contention of plaintiff was that alleged agreement to sell was void---.---Validity---.---Act of vendor would not prejudice the right of vendee to seek enforcement of his rights if vendor had title even at later stage or recovery of compensation if vendor failed in perfecting title of vendee---.---Injunctive order did not hold the status of a 'decree' and same would not make an agreement void unless vendor was not competent to enter into a contract at such time or was subsequently declared so---.---Defendants had no intention to deceive the plaintiff and they were ready to perform their part subject to payment of balance consideration---.---Silence or concealment of some immaterial facts would not qualify the term 'fraud'---.---Defendants were competent to enter into contract and agreement to sell---.---Non-disclosure of injunctive order was not sufficient to declare the agreement 'void'---.---Defendants communicated their intention to the plaintiff to perform their part while requesting to place draft deeds for execution thereof but plaintiff avoided the same---.---Plaintiff avoided to pay balance consideration---.---Plaintiff was not entitled for restoration of earnest money---.---Defendants had admitted the claim of plaintiff to the extent of agreement and they were ready to perform their obligations---.---Suit of plaintiff was decreed subject to deposit of remaining consideration amount within one month failing which earnest money deposited with Nazir would be returned to the defendants---.---If defendants failed to make title of plaintiff perfect on payment of remaining consideration amount then earnest money should be restored to the plaintiff. Haji Abdul Karim and others v. Messrs Florida Builders (Pvt.) Ltd., PLD 2010 Kar. 17; Rashid Naseem through Attorney v. Mrs. Amina Fahim and…