Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 1507 2023 CLC 1079 2023 SLD 1507
Balochistan High Court
Regular First Appeals Nos.35 and 36 of 2016, decided on 23rd November, 2022.Date of hearing: 14th November, 2022.
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Gul Hassan Tareen, JJ
Muhammad Akram Shah for Appellant (in R.F.A. No.35 of 2016). Ms. Shakar Bibi Baloch for
Respondents Nos.1 and 2 (in R.F.A. No.35 of 2016). Shah Rasool Kakar for
Respondent No.6 (in R.F.A. No.35 of 2016). Ms. Shakar Bibi Baloch for Appellants (in R.F.A.

ABDUL SATTAR and others----Petitioners

VERSUS

ABDULLAH and others----Respondents

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 17,79

Law: Contract, Act, 1872

Section: 24,26

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 17 79---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.24 26---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Sale agreement---Proof---Vendee filed a suit for specific performance against the vendors on the basis of a contract of sale---During pendency of suit, two persons (plaintiffs of later suit) filed a suit for specific performance of oral contract against the vendors---Vendors denied the claim of vendee and admitted the claim of plaintiffs---Trial Court decreed the suit of vendee only to the extent of two vendors---Validity---Document was required by Art. 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to be attested by two witnesses and the execution thereof to be proved through the testimony of two marginal witnesses per Art.79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---However, the agreement between vendee and vendors in the present case was attested by six marginal witnesses and five of them were produced i.e. even beyond the requirement of law---Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit to the extent of two vendors because the two sisters and mother of the vendors were neither executants of the contract nor had they authorized the vendors to sell out their shares---So far as agreement between the plaintiffs and vendors was concerned, record revealed that the property was transferred in exchange of a certain price as well as in exchange for the daughter of one of the plaintiffs---Such an agreement was not only immoral and against public policy but also void under Ss.24 26 of the Contract Act, 1872---Vendors had malafidely supported the suit of the plaintiffs---Appeals filed by vendors and plaintiffs were dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S.24---Agreements void, if considerations and objects unlawful in part---Scope---If a contract or promise is founded upon a legal and an illegal consideration; the illegal consideration cannot be separated from the legal consideration and rejected, the illegality of part vitiates the whole. (c) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S.54---Sale defined---Scope---Four ingredients of a sale are, the parties, the subject matter, the price and the conveyance---Word price means only…
🔒
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