1995 PLP 982 (SCMR)
AKRAM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 982 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | AKRAM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 982 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 982 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 982 (SCMR) (AKRAM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- CA. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ghulam Hasan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 9:
- Date of hearing: 7th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 21‑2‑1993, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in RSA No. 20/1990). ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell‑‑‑Three Courts below had concurrently found that the vendors had agreed to sell land in question to plaintiffs and part of sale amount was paid before the Registrar‑‑ Suit was decreed by all the Courts below‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑High Court had positively recorded that all the plaintiffs were parties to the contract‑‑‑Such fact was not denied by vendors in written statement‑‑‑Transaction in question, was proved to be for the benefit of all the vendors including the minors whose interests were admittedly safeguarded and taken into consideration in sale transaction‑‑ No case was made out for interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal had been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 21‑2‑1993.
2. The facts to be noted are that respondents Nos. 1 to 9 brought a suit for specific performance against the vendors, respondents Nos. 10 to
12. According to the plaintiffs, respondents Nos. 9 and 10 executed a registered agreement of sale dated 9‑12‑1980, of the land in dispute for a consideration of Rs.1,50,
000. Rs.55,262 were paid before the Registering Officer, and the remaining sale price was to be paid at the time of registration of the deed. During the pendency of the suit, the vendor sold the land to the petitioners. The vendor admitted the execution of agreement, but said that the agreement was without consideration. The three Courts have concurrently held that the vendors were agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs. Rs.55,262 were paid by the plaintiffs to the vendors before the Registering Officer on 9‑12‑1980. The plaintiffs had always been ready to perform their obligations. The vendors and the petitioners filed an appeal before the District Court, but the vendors did not join the petitioners before the High Court. The agreement Exh. P. 1 is a registered document. The evidence has been properly appreciated by the Courts below. There are concurrent findings of fact.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Khusi Muhammad had only signed the agreement on his behalf and on behalf of the others and some of the plaintiffs were minor on the date of sale The High Court has positively recorded that all the plaintiffs are parties to the contract. This fact was not denied in the written statement. Ever otherwise, Khushi Muhammad entered into, the transaction for the benefit of all the vendors. There is nothing to suggest that the interest of the minors has not been taken into consideration by Khushi Muhammad. There is no force in this petition. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for is refused. AA./A‑1179/S Leave refused.