Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 2014 2006 SLD 2014 2006 CLC 430
Sindh High Court
H.C.A. No.241 of 2004, decision dated: 14-12-2005.
MUSHIR ALAM AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFERY, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Mrs. SHABEENA FARHAT

VS

HIGHWAY HOUSING PROJECT and 2 others

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 12---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.113---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Limitation---Rejection of plaint---Valid agreement to sell---Prerequisites---Plaintiff did not file any agreement to sell executed between the parties and had only relied upon the receipts of instalment and acknowledgement by vendors---Grievance of plaintiff was that she had made full payment but vendors refused to execute sale-deed in her favour---Plaint was rejected by High Court, being barred by limitation---Validity---Not always necessary that contract was in conventional written form to constitute a valid agreement enforceable under law---Necessary requirement was that there must be an offer and acceptance by and between persons competent to enter into contract---Even oral contract, if proved, could be enforced---Receipt, containing an offer and acceptance was as good a contract as any other form of written contract---Receipts and acknowledgment filed in suit, prima facie, contained all necessary ingredients that constituted agreement to sell enforceable under law---Limitation to seek specific performance of contract was governed under two eventualities as contemplated by Art.113 of Limitation Act, 1908, that could set the limitation rolling in cases of specific performance of contract, one where time was essence of the contract and was fixed, secondly where no time was fixed for the. performance of the contract--Limitation of three years would commence from the date fixed in the agreement under first part of Art.113 of Limitation Act, 1908---Where no date was specified, then limitation of three years would start rolling from the date when the plaintiff had notice of refusal by the vendor---Limitation, in cases of such nature, was to be liberally construed without causing any injury to the intention of legislature, it must be in aid to advance cause of justice and to curb mischief---Plaintiff did not have any notice of refusal by vendors and there was no reason for the refusal as entire sale consideration was apparently received---Order passed by High Court was set…
🔒
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