| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 1535 1981 SLD 1535 1981 PLD 623 |
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No. 108 of 1977, heard on 29th March,1981
M. SH. QURESHI AND MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH, JJ
Ch. Aziz Ahmad for Appellants.Syed Iftikhar Ahmad for
Respondent No. 1.Nemo for
Respondent No. 2.Muhammad Yaqoob Khan for
Respondents Nos. 3 to 7.
Regular First Appeal No. 108 of 1977, heard on 29th March,1981
M. SH. QURESHI AND MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH, JJ
Ch. Aziz Ahmad for Appellants.Syed Iftikhar Ahmad for
Respondent No. 1.Nemo for
Respondent No. 2.Muhammad Yaqoob Khan for
Respondents Nos. 3 to 7.
Mst. SAEEDA AKHTAR AND others ----DefendantsvsLAL DIN AHD others --Plaintiffs
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) -- O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2-Interim-injunction-Sale-Validity of-Civil Court's prohibitory interim orders preventing sale of property-.Held, violation of such orders merely entails penal consequences for vendor but do not detract from validity of sale.-[Injunction-Sale]. Bell Ram & Brothers v. Ram Lal and others A I R 1925 Lah. 644 ref. (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872)- S. 13-Transaction of sale of property-Judgment can be proved as an- instance of denial of right by a Court-Grounds or reasons given by Court in previous suit far denial of right to property-Held, cannot be regarded as relevant evidence under S. 13 in later suit. Coca-Cola Company v. Pepsi-Cola Company A I R 1942 P C 40 ref. Midnapur Samdari Ltd. v. Narash Narayan Roy A I R (?) Cal. 460 distinguished. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 190$)-.. O. 11, r. 2-Frame of suit-Previous suit based on altogether a different cause of action than later suit-Cause of action for present suit arising much later in time than that of previous suit-Held, later suit not barred by provisions of O. It, r. 2.-[Cause of action]. (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872)-. S. 115-Estoppel-Estoppel by election-Requisites of-Two remedies should not only be available in alternative but should also be inconsistent so that option of one must necessarily imply repudiation of other.-[Est6ppel]. Golab Koer v. Badshah Bahadur 21 C 129 ref. (e) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)- - S. 21 (c)-Contract with uncertain terms-Vendee not knowing as to which land vendor had agreed to sell-Uncertainty in agreement not removed by extrinsic evidence-Suit land not answering description of land given in agreement to sell-Such suit for specific performance cannot be decreed.-[Contract]. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH, J.-This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated 14-5-1977 of Mehr Ahmad Raza, Civil Judge, Lahore, whereby he decreed the suit filed by respondent No. 1 against the two appellants and their father Siraj Din, for possession of about .1 square of land, described in the plaint, through specific performance of an agreement to sell, which was executed by Siraj Din. 2. The background of this case is that Siraj Din had…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492