Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 1183 1998 SLD 1183 1998 PLD 11
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 115 of 1970, decided on 17th July, 1997.
GHULAM MAHMOOD QURESHI, J
Ch. Khurshid Ahmad for Appellants Nazir Ahmad Chaudhary for
Respondents

GHULAM HUSSAIN and others

VS

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)-- ----S. 73---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 19---Breach of contract by vendor---Remedies---Where vendor had failed to complete contract of sale of immovable property, purchaser would have two remedies open to him; to treat the contract rescinded and sue either in equity for restitution of his former position or to sue at law for any money that he was parting with or; treat the contract on foot and ask for damages for breach or to seek remedy for specific performance---Ordinary damages for breach of contract were recoverable where seller had no title to property on date of contract and had failed to complete sale before the date fixed for completion---Compensation could be awarded for material defect in title and for material defect in property---No backing out of agreement was possible unless performance of contract had become impossible or impracticable -in either of which event, Court was empowered by way of mandatory rule or by exercise of discretion to avoid specific performance of agreement. House Building Finance Corporation v. Shehanshah Hummayun Cooperative House Building Society and others 1992 SCMR 19; Messrs Mussarat Shaukat Ali v. Safiya Khatun 1994 SCMR 2189; Khuda Bakhsh v. Abdul Jabbar PLD 1952 Pesh. 32; Bashir Ahmad and 4 others v. Muhammad Ramzan and another 1988 CLC 1600; Hakim Ghulam Rasool v. Sh. Imdad Hussain and another PLD 1968 Lah. 501 and Muhammad Yaqoob v. Muhamamd Nasrullah Khan and others PLD 1986 SC 497 ref. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-- ----S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Vendor instead of performing his part of contract transferred land in question to defendants through oral gift---Defendants could not be considered as bona fide transferees for value for no consideration was involved in transaction of gift and in presence of notices which had been served upon them as to prior sale agreement--Defendants could not be deemed to have no knowledge of earlier agreement of sale---None of defendants, however, appeared in witness-box either to defend the suit or to rebut claim of plaintiffs, instead they put forth their mother for such purpose---Defendant, thus,…
🔒
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