| Case ID |
03760a85-e1bc-4adf-93d8-91eaa29cd0ae |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Regular First Appeal No. 2 of 2001 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 10, 2004 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 06, 2003 |
| Decision |
The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as it lacks merit. The court finds that the respondent was entitled to a return of the Rs. 8,00,000 paid due to the appellant's failure to transfer the title of the property as agreed. The court reiterates the legal obligations under the Transfer of Property Act and the Contract Act, emphasizing that the vendor's failure to perform contractual obligations renders the agreement void, thus entitling the vendee to a refund. |
| Summary |
In this case, the Quetta High Court addressed the dispute between Haji Khudai Dad and Ghulam Yaseen regarding the sale of a shop. The court ruled on the obligations of the seller under the Transfer of Property Act, highlighting that the seller was legally bound to transfer the title to the buyer. The ruling clarified that an express covenant of title is not necessary as it is implied by law. The court found that the agreement became void due to the impossibility of performance, leading to the conclusion that the vendee was entitled to reclaim the money paid. This case emphasizes the importance of understanding property rights and contractual obligations in real estate transactions. Key terms such as 'real estate law', 'property transfer', 'contractual obligations', and 'legal remedies for breach of contract' are essential for anyone involved in property transactions. |
| Court |
Quetta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, C.J.,
AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J
|
| Lawyers |
Mujeteh Ahmad Hashmi,
Qahir Shah
|
| Petitioners |
Haji KHUDAI DAD
|
| Respondents |
GHULAM YASEEN
|
| Citations |
2004 SLD 1920,
2004 CLC 1302
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882),
Contract Act (IX of 1872)
|
| Sections |
55,
56,
65
|