Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,12

Law: Contract, Act, 1872

Section: 2(D),25,22

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.42 12---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 2(d), 25 22---Suit for declaration---Specific performance of agreement to sell---Promise for the consideration---Agreement without consideration void, unless it is in writing and registered, or is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law---Contract caused by mistake of one party as to matter of fact---Scope---Dispute arose between the defendant and plaintiff due to consolidation proceedings---Dispute resulted into litigation, which remained pending before various forums alleged that the parties entered into compromise regarding land measuring 20 kanals---Defendant failed to attest mutation in furtherance of compromise despite several requests in consequence of the said denial filed suit for declaration and specific performance with consequential relief---Contention of defendant was that compromise was not enforceable because no money was paid to the defendant hence no consideration was given to buy the promise of the defendant; that the claim of plaintiff was doubtful and that even without the alleged forbearance the defendant would have successfully obtained his land---Validity---Concept of consideration as envisaged in S.2(d) of the Contract Act, 1872 did not necessarily mean or imply any monetary benefit or anything susceptible to valuation in terms of money---Defendant had admitted litigation with the plaintiff regarding consolidation proceedings and had further admitted that he had promised to give the suit land to the plaintiff---Evidence clearly reflected that at the desire of the defendant and because of abstinence or forbearance on the part of the plaintiff, litigation having spread over decades had ended---Defendant had failed to prove fraud with respect to the agreement and make out a case requiring interference in the findings of two Courts below---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Firm Gopal Company Ltd. and others v. Firm Hazarilal Company AIR 1963 MP 37; Babu Tikam Das v. Nawab Abbas Mirza AIR 1934 Oudh 442 (2) and Muhammad Bibi and 2 others v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others PLD 1973 Kar. 444…

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