| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 2493 2020 SLD 2493 2020 CLC 1974 |
Sindh High Court
IInd Appeals Nos. 65 and 97 of 2012, decided on 10th June,2020, Date of hearing: 24th February, 2020.
NAZAR AKBAR, JUSTICE
Muhammad Saeed Akhtar for Appellant No.1 (in IInd Appeal No.65 of 2012).Amanul Haq for Appellant No.2 (in IInd Appeal No.65 of 2012).Faizan Peshimam for
Respondent No.1 (in IInd Appeal No.65 of 2012).Nemo for
Respondent No.2 (in IInd Appeal No.65 of
IInd Appeals Nos. 65 and 97 of 2012, decided on 10th June,2020, Date of hearing: 24th February, 2020.
NAZAR AKBAR, JUSTICE
Muhammad Saeed Akhtar for Appellant No.1 (in IInd Appeal No.65 of 2012).Amanul Haq for Appellant No.2 (in IInd Appeal No.65 of 2012).Faizan Peshimam for
Respondent No.1 (in IInd Appeal No.65 of 2012).Nemo for
Respondent No.2 (in IInd Appeal No.65 of
MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR AND OTHERSVSTAHA MOBEEN QURESHI THROUGH ATTORNEY AND OTHERS
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12,19
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 5
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.12 19---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVIII, R.5---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Transfer of suit property to the subsequent purchaser---Breach of contract---Compensation, award of---Attachment of property before ---Scope---Suit was decreed with the direction to the executant of agreement to sell to execute conveyance deed in favour of plaintiff but no relief of possession was extended---Validity---Plaintiff had paid all the consideration amount to the defendant/builder of housing society---Defendant had sold suit land in favour of subsequent purchaser and he was bound to refund amount so realized by him to the plaintiff---Builder had failed to complete construction by due date and even he had not returned consideration amount received by him to the plaintiff---Subsequent purchaser had possession of suit property and its sale deed---Execution of conveyance deed through Court in favour of plaintiff would render sale deed in favour of defendants as ineffective---Case of plaintiff for specific performance against the builder had been made out but it had become a case of hardship for the subsequent purchaser---Relief of specific performance, even if contract was enforceable, was discretionary and same could be withheld by the Court---When Court had concluded that grant of relief of specific performance had been made out but it would be a case of hardship to other side or unfair and inequitable to any third party who was not at fault then it should compensate the plaintiff---Builder had breached contract and only execution of title document was not specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property when plaintiff was not in possession of suit premises---Execution of title document had to be coupled with delivery of possession of suit property to the plaintiff---Court could not grant decree of possession of suit property to the plaintiff owing to the presence of bona fide purchaser of suit premises---Plaintiff should have been granted relief of specific performance with additional compensation, in circumstances---Court in suit for specific peformance could grant two decrees of…
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