Case Details

Citation(s)
1953 SLG 23 1953 SLD 23 1953 PLD 410
Lahore High Court
Second Appeal No. 298 of 1951, decided on 10th April 1953, from the decree of Ghulam Rabbani, Additional District Judge, Jhang, dated the 23rd July 1951, reversing that of D. Fazal-ud-Din, Senior, Civil Judge, Jhang, dated the 13th December 1950
MUHAMMAD KHURSHID ZAMAN END B. Z. KAIKAUS, JJ
Aftab Hussain for Appellants. Mazhar Ali Azhar for
Respondent

UMAR HAYAT AND ANOTHER

VS

MATHELA AND others

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 55

Law: Contract Act, 1872

Section: 65

(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 55----Sale---­Deed not effective to transfer title-Held, breach of contract of sale arose the moment deed was executed. An agreement for sale is in fact a promise to transfer owner­ship of the land and if by the sale deed the land in fact has not been transferred a breach of contract would appear to occur the moment a sale deed is executed which has not the effect of transferring the promised title. (b) Sale- Covenant of title-Suit by vendee on breach of­ Limitation---Starting point from discovery of defect-(Obiter). (c) Sale- Contract of-Defect in title-Discovery of, does not per se make contract void. The discovery of a defect in title doffs not per se make a contract of sale void. (d) Sale- Contract of---Cannot be rescinded after execution of sale deed on ground of defect in title unless such warranty incorporated in deed. If the vendor is unable to show a good title before the execu­tion of a sale deed the vendee may refuse to accept a sale deed, may rescind the contract and may sue for damages for breach of contract. The basis of the rescission will be the failure of the vendor to perform the contract. But after the performance of a contract has been accepted it cannot, in the absence of a special agreement, be rescinded by a party to it except on the ground of a defect in the party's consent either to the original agreement or to the performance of it. What were conditions of the contract before its performance become only warranties or at least are enforceable only as warranties after the performance. (e) Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 65-Consideration-­Failure of-Suit by vendee to recover balance of consideration from vendors after the earlier sale in latter's favour had been declared null and void under agricultural custom-Competent. Mathela plaintiff respondent purchased the land in dispute from Umar Hayat and Umar Draz defendant-appellants for a sum of Rs. 5,000 by a registered deed dated the 24th of September 1946. Allah Ditta the deceased father and predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-appellants had in turn purchased the land from one Muhammad Bakhsh by a deed dated the 20th of November 1940 for Rs.…
🔒
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