Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 100,XLI

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 19

Summary:

The case involves two consolidated civil appeals regarding a dispute over a booking agreement for a flat in Burj-ul-Khalid, Karachi. The Appellant filed suit to declare the booking agreement cancelled due to Respondent No.1’s default in payments. Respondent No.1 filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement. The trial court dismissed the Appellant’s suit and decreed the Respondent’s suit with compensation awarded under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Upon appeal, this court found that Respondent No.1 was neither willing nor able to perform the contract terms, and the breach could not be attributed to the Appellant. Since compensation under Section 19 depends on the defendant’s breach, the award of compensation was not justified. The court allowed the appeal, decreed the Appellant’s suit, and dismissed Respondent No.1’s suit.

Core Points:

• The Appellant cancelled the booking due to Respondent No.1's non-payment and breach of contract terms.
• Respondent No.1 sought specific performance and compensation without proving readiness and willingness to perform.
• Respondent No.1 altered terms after many years, showing lack of intention to honor the original agreement.
• The trial and appellate courts erred in awarding compensation under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act as breach was not attributable to the Appellant.
• Burden of obtaining loan and payment lay on Respondent No.1, confirmed in cross-examination.
• The coersion claim regarding the repayment schedule was not proved, and the appellant was wrongly burdened to disprove coercion.
• Interference with concurrent findings of fact was justified due to misreading and non-consideration of critical evidence.
• Final ruling dismissed Respondent No.1’s suit and upheld cancellation of booking by the Appellant.

Law & Section Table:

J U D G M E N T