Specific performance of contract

2025 PLD 31 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 27(b)Specific performance of contractRelief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title

In cases involving protection under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877 ('Act of 1877') the subsequent vendee who asserts that he is a bona fide purchaser i.e. a transferee for value has to discharge the initial onus

Latter has to discharge the initial onus to the effect that; he had acquired the property for due consideration and thus is a transferee for value; he or she, as the case may be, has to show that the sale was for a price paid to the vendor and not otherwise; there was no dishonesty of purpose of tainted intention to enter into the transaction thereby meaning that the latter had acted in good faith or bonafidely and, lastly, that he/she had taken reasonable care to inquire i.e. had acted as a person of ordinary prudence in making inquiries expected of a purchaser who intends to acquire a good title for the value being paid for.

2021 MLD 617 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12 & 39Agreement to sell immoveable propertySpecific performance of contractCancellation of documentEquitable remedyForm and intention by the partyScope

In a lis initiated under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, normal course, which the Court adopted , was to examine each and every detail qua agreement inter-se the parties besides claim and counter-claims thereto with actions performed or omitted to perform and then to award appropriate relief

For the functions to be performed by a Court, as equitable remedy, there were some guiding principles/maxims on the subject, one of the same was that "equity looked to the intention and not to the form", there was no issue of form, in the present case, but of course was of the intention

To assess/gauge the intention behind an act, performed or omitted to perform, certain factors were required to be looked into

Acts performed, in the present case, by the respondent/vendee pursuant to the agreement included (i) he, admittedly, paid Rs.10 million (ii) he, on the request of the appellant, paid the part of outstanding amount, admittedly, prior to the time stipulated for the payment (iii) when appellant refused to receive remaining sale consideration on the target date, he (respondent) filed his suit within seven days of the said refusal with readiness to pay the outstanding amount; and (vi) on the direction of the Trial Court, he (respondent) deposited the outstanding amount within the stipulated period, which was also borne out from record

High Court, having assessed the acts held that respondent had the intention to complete the already consented act under the agreement, thus, he was rightly held entitled to discretionary relief under the Specific Relief Act, 1877

Conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court was neither perverse nor arbitrary rather was in consonance with the law on the subject i.e. Specific Relief Act, 1877

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent/vendee

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 MLD 617 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.12, 39 & 54Agreement to sell immoveable propertySpecific performance of contractEquitable remedyDiscretion of Trial CourtJurisdiction of the Appellate CourtScope

When suitor resorted to avail equitable remedy then the Court exercised its jurisdiction by way of discretion and not in an arbitrary manner, because equitable jurisdiction was discretionary and not arbitrary

Said discretion must be exercised in accordance with fair play and judicial principles guided by sound reasoning

When Trial Court exercised its discretion in a way that entire evidence was well appreciated, conduct of the parties was evaluated, material on record was considered in accordance with set principles of law, in that event Appellate Court was required not to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Trial Court

Guiding principle for interference in the exercise of discretion of Trial Court was that Trial Court had exercised said jurisdiction perversely, arbitrary or against judicial principles

Appellate Court was also not to exercise its discretion against the grant of specific performance on extraneous consideration

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent/vendee

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 PLD 401 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12 & 22Specific performance of contractDiscretion of courtScope

Specific performance of a contract was essentially an equitable and discretionary relief and the court seized of the matter was in a better position to decide and resolve not simply according to the spirit of the law but also in accordance with the principles of substantial justice by keeping in mind peculiar facts and circumstance of each case

Specific performance could not be claimed as a matter of right

Discretion to be exercised by the court required that it should not be arbitrary but should be sound and reasonable guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal

Such an exercise of grant or refusal of relief would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and also the conduct of the parties.

2016 YLR 1604 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 12Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R. 3Specific performance of contractDeclaratory decree in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sellScopeCompromise decree, setting aside ofApplication for setting aside decree was allowed by the Trial CourtContention of appellant was that compromise decree could not be granted on the basis of agreement to sellValidityAgreement to sell was not a title document rather it was an instrument for obtaining a title document

Decree in a suit for specific performance of contract could be issued directing the defendant to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff or court might direct for registration of sale deed through any of its officials

Compromise decree between the parties was not issued on the basis of suit for specific performance of contract rather decree was passed on the basis of compromise

Such decree was lawful provided it fulfilled the requirements of O. XXIII, R. 3, C. P. C

Compromise between the parties might be of whole suit or a part thereof and might even include the matter that did not relate to the suit

Suit was validly decreed on the basis of compromise

Non-impleadment of a party did not constitute the element of fraud

Element of misrepresentation was not attracted in the present case

Application for setting aside of decree was not competent in circumstances

Impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court was set aside

Compromise decree was maintained

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2013 YLR 407 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 12Specific performance of contractScope

Specific performance of a contract being an equitable relief, could not be granted as a matter of right; and it could be granted only if "under all circumstances", it was just and equitable to do so

Determination of court as to whether consideration to be received by the defendant was grossly inadequate with reference to the circumstances existed at the date of execution of contract, by itself or coupled with the other circumstances and judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court where relief was granted to the plaintiffs in shape of a decree for payment of received earnest money with interest at the bank rates for the period it remained with the defendant, appeared to be equitable and proper

Judgment of the High Court by ordering specific performance of contract, was grossly inadequate, and could not stand

Judgment and decree of High Court were set aside and judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were maintained, in circumstances.

2013 YLR 1065 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 12Specific performance of contractPowers of CourtScopeSuch relief being an equitable relief neither claimable as a matter of right nor grantable in routine manner

Principles.

2007 YLR 2333 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.12Specific performance of contractNature

Such relief being equitable relief, conduct of party claiming. such relief would he most relevant and expedient.