Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 949 2004 SLD 949 2004 SCMR 584
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.213-L of 2002, decision dated: 20-02-2002.(On appeal from the judgment dated 15-11-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in R. A. No. 60-C of 2001 in R. S. A. No. 117 of 1988)
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, TANVIR AHMED KHAN AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others

VS

HAKIM ALI and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)----S. 55---Agreement to sell regarding immovable property---Time fixed in agreement for execution of sale-deed---Effect---Time would not be deemed to be of the essence of contract merely because a date was fixed therein for its performance---Such aspect of the matter should be considered and decided keeping in view attending circumstances to ascertain real intention of the parties. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 55---Agreement to sell regarding immovable property---Time fixed in agreement for execution of sale-deed---Seller at the time of execution of agreement was not vested with full ownership rights, but he had to perfect his title by depositing Government dues, which fact was within knowledge of parties---Held, time fixed in agreement. was not intended to be of the essence---Such date had been fixed tentatively with the intention that, needful might possibly be done before such date. JUDGMENT MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Respondents filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 5-10-1972 executed by the petitioners in their favour regarding lands in dispute. In the agreement it was covenanted by the petitioners that they would execute sale-deed up to 5-1-1973 and in case they failed to do so, they would be liable to pay compensation etc. On 31-1-1973 the respondents filed a suit for specific performance of the above sale-agreement in which -it was specifically alleged that they had time and again been asking the petitioners to abide by the agreement and execute sale-deed in their favour for they were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement which they declined. In par.4 of the plaint it was specifically pleaded that failure to execute the sale-deed was on account of the act of the present petitioners of non-payment of Government dues about the land in dispute on the payment of which their ownership rights were to be perfected as it was a mortgagee unit, against which the land was allotted to the petitioners. The petitioners out rightly denied the very execution of the agreement. 2. The trial Court after considering evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that execution of…
🔒
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