Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 12 , 27 , 230

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 12 & 27---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 230---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immoveable property---Suit filed by plaintiff (vendee) against Attorney of owner of the property without impleading the latter -- Where plaintiff subsequently applied to amend the plaint to include the owner of the property as a defendant---Where limitation period to the extent of the owner of property had expired---Whether the plaintiff could maintain a suit against the Attorney for specific performance of the contract, particularly when it was not within time to the extent of the necessary party, that is to say, the owner of the property---Held, that recitals of the contract between the plaintiff and the Attorney and the evidence brought on record suggested that the agent/Attorney, had disclosed the identity of the principal (owner of the property) and intended to impose the obligations of the contract upon the owner of the property and also secured its advantages to her--Attorney had no beneficial interest in the contract---General rule is that that where a contract is made for and on account of the principal and in his name, and the agent has no beneficial interest in the contract, the right of action upon the contract is in the principal alone and the agent neither can sue and be sued upon it---Said principle is also embedded in Section 230 of the Contract Act, 1872--Agent/Attorney, acted for and on behalf of the owner of the property and thus suit for specific performance of the contract was not maintainable against the owner, especially when the plaintiff had added the owner after the prescribed period of limitation, and secondly, owner's status in it, at best, could only be regarded as a proper party and, in terms of Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, specific performance of the contract also could not be sought against the owner.

Hayat and others v. Amir PLD 1982 SC 167; Morton v.