| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 61 2024 SLD 61 2024 SCMR 168 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 5632 of 2021, decided on 16th November, 2023. (Against judgment dated 22.09.2021, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Regular First Appeal No.324 of 2020) Date of hearing: 16th November, 2023.
Present: Yahya Afridi, Ayesha A. Malik and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
Hassan Raza Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents.
Civil Petition No. 5632 of 2021, decided on 16th November, 2023. (Against judgment dated 22.09.2021, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Regular First Appeal No.324 of 2020) Date of hearing: 16th November, 2023.
Present: Yahya Afridi, Ayesha A. Malik and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
Hassan Raza Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents.
MASOOD AHMAD BHATTI and another---Petitioners
VERSUS
KHAN BADSHAH and another---Respondents
Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section: 54
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12
(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 54---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Agreement to sell immoveable property---Balance sale consideration---Vendor refusing to receive pay orders of balance sale consideration on the basis that the same were not issued through the personal account of the vendee---Validity---Agreement to sell between the parties did not contain any condition requiring the remaining sale consideration to be paid from personal bank account of vendee (plaintiff)---Vendor and his attorney (defendants) never raised any objection when they received pay orders for earnest money and additional earnest money issued through bank accounts which were not in the name of the vendee---In order to avoid the specific performance of the agreements, the defendants had taken an afterthought plea that had not been impliedly or expressly mentioned in the initial agreement to sell and/or extended agreement---Vendee had already paid/deposited the balance sale consideration in the trial Court---Another aspect of the matter was that the defendants had failed to obtain NOC for the transfer of the subject property by the cut off date mentioned in the initial and the extended agreements and had utilized the earnest money paid to them by the vendee and got interest on that amount from the bank, hence caused huge loss to the vendee and correspondingly got profit/mark up on the advance money from the bank---Defendants failed to produce in evidence any document, which could establish that vendee purchased the subject property for investment or re-sale purposes, or that any fraud or misrepresentation was played by the vendee---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and the extended agreement was rightly decreed by the trial Court---Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property---Bona fides of vendee---Balance sale consideration deposited in Court---Where the vendor refuses to accept the sale consideration amount, the vendee seeking a specific performance of the…
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