P L D 2021 Islamabad 236
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 12 & 22---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Pre-conditions---Words "readiness" and "willingness"---Connotation---Respondent-plaintiff sought specific performance of oral agreement to sell and appellant-defendant resisted the same on the plea that balance consideration amount was not paid within time specified in agreement therefore, the same was forfeited---Suit was decreed by Trial Court in favour of respondent-plaintiff---Validity---Respondent-plaintiff in his suit was to demonstrate that he was ready, willing and able to perform his part of contract throughout the proceedings till the date of decree---If prior to that, plaintiff negative his readiness, willingness or ability to perform his part of contract by his conduct, he could not claim specific performance of the contract---"Readiness" denotes capacity of a purchaser to purchase land while word "willingness" denotes his conduct---Plaintiff seeking benefit of specific performance of a contract had to manifest that his conduct was without a blemish throughout, entitling him to specific relief---Factum of readiness, willingness and ability to perform his part of contract was to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of party and attending circumstances---At no stage, prior to institution of suit for specific performance respondent-plaintiff issued notice to appellant-defendant demanding transfer of suit properties upon payment of balance sale consideration---Such fact was admitted by respondent-plaintiff, who also did not file any application for deposit of remaining sale consideration before Trial Court---Trial Court erred in decreeing suit of respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of agreement---Petitions seeking respondent-plaintiff's eviction from portions of suit properties in his occupation were dismissed by the Court of Rent Controller but such by itself would not make respondent-plaintiff undisputed lawful owner of suit properties---Court of Rent Controller did not have jurisdiction to determine disputes as to title of demised premises---Trial Court should have exercised discretion not to decree suit for specific performance of agreement filed by respondent-plaintiff---High Court directed appellant-defendant to return earnest money to respondent-plaintiff with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum and dismissed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss.12 & 22---Suit for specific performance---Jurisdiction to decree the suit---Discretion, exercise of---Equitable considerations---Applicability---Jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary---Even if it is lawful to decree specific performance, Court need not do so, if on exercising discretion in the manner indicated in S.22 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, Court comes to the conclusion that discretion is to be exercised not to decree specific performance---Equitable considerations are the most relevant in realm of exercise of discretion---Exercise of discretion cannot be arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and in consonance with principles of justice, equity and good conscience---Court has to consider all facts and circumstances of the case in order to exercise discretion to decree or not to decree specific performance and in that process cannot take into account conduct of parties---Court in granting specific performance, acts in equity therefore, it becomes necessary that high standard of equitable conduct must be displayed by plaintiff---To adjudge whether plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the Court must take into consideration the conduct of plaintiff prior and subsequent to filing of suit along with other attending circumstances.
(c) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---
----S. 52---Pendente lite, principle of---Applicability---Primary object of principle of lis pendens is to maintain status quo and protect a litigant, who emerges successful against alienation of suit property by his opponents during pendency of suit in which any right to such property is in question---Principle of lis pendens does not prohibit transfer of suit property pendente lite but transferee acquires rights subject to judgment / decree passed by a Court in pending suit.
(d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----S. 27 (b)---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 52---Pendente lite, principle of---Plea of bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without knowledge---Scope---Plea of bona fide purchaser of suit property for value without notice does not in any manner offset or dilute principle of lis pendens---Plea of bona fide purchaser without notice is not open to transferee pendente lite---Doctrine of lis pendens renders a transfer made during pendency of suit subservient to rights of plaintiff seeking specific performance of a prior contract entered into by vendor in his favour, even though subsequent transferee had obtained transfer without notice of prior contract
0 Comments