| Case ID |
388fd06e-5203-4af0-9e74-21631f69fa27 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Regular First Appeal No. 21 of 1985 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 30, 1993 |
| Hearing Date |
Nov 30, 1993 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court held that the agreement for the sale of leasehold rights was void due to the veto imposed by the Military Authorities, which was not lifted despite subsequent communications. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs could not compel the defendants to execute the sale deed since the necessary permissions were not granted. The court also ruled that specific performance could not be enforced as the conditions for the execution of the sale agreement were not met, thus dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. |
| Summary |
In the case of Regular First Appeal No. 21 of 1985, the Lahore High Court deliberated on the specifics of contract enforcement under the Specific Relief Act. The case arose from a dispute over the sale of leasehold rights in property, where the transfer was contingent upon obtaining a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Military Authorities. The court found that the plaintiffs could not enforce the sale agreement as the required permissions were vetoed, and their attempts to argue for specific performance were denied. The ruling highlighted the importance of fulfilling preconditions in contractual agreements, especially when third-party approvals are necessary. This case underscores the legal complexities surrounding property transfers and the enforcement of contracts under the Specific Relief Act. Keywords include 'specific performance', 'contract enforcement', and 'property law'. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Cantonment Board,
Military Authorities
|
| Judges |
SH. RIAZ AHMAD,
CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Hanif Bhatti,
Malik Qamar Afzal,
Mirza Anwar Baig
|
| Petitioners |
6 others,
QURESHI MUHAMMAD ANWAR
|
| Respondents |
3 others,
S.A. QURESHI
|
| Citations |
1994 SLD 1274 = 1994 CLC 733
|
| Other Citations |
Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd. v. State of Bihar and another AIR 1954 SC 165,
Syed Ghulam Muhammad Shah v. Syed Fateh Muhammad Shah PLD 1955 FC 1,
Ziauddin Rafi v. Muhammad Khan and others PLD 1962 (W.P.) Lah. 321,
Denny, Mott and Dickson Ltd. v. James B. Fraser & Company Ltd. 1944 AC & PC 265,
Kassamali v. Mst. Shakra Begum PLD 1968 Kar. 307,
Messrs Dada Ltd. v. Abdul Sattar & Co. 1984 SCMR 77,
M/s. Mansukhdad Bodaram v. Hussain Brothers Ltd. PLD 1980 SC 122,
Safia Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq etc. 1989 CLC 1915,
Muhammad Ishaq and another v. Sufia Begum 1992 SCMR 1629,
Punjab v. Kalusa AIR 1927 Nag. 233,
Ismail Khan Mir Azam Khan v. The Official Receiver AIR 1928 Sindh 63,
Nathulal v. Phoolchand AIR 1970 SC 546,
Agha Sikandar Ali Khan v. Mst. Nawab Bibi and 11 others PLD 1973 Lah. 77,
Davis Contractors Limited v. Farham Urban District Council (1956) 2 All ELR 145,
British Movietonews Limited v. London and District Cinemas Limited 1951 All ELR 617,
Rana Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd., Allahabad AIR 1961 SC 1790,
M/s. Hafiz Abdul Aziz Cotton Ginning Factory v. M/s. Haji Ali Muhammad & Co. PLD 1966 (W.P.) Kar. 197,
Barkat Ram v. Anant Ram 1931 IC 632,
Davies v. Davies (1987) 36 CA 359
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877),
Cantonments Lease Agreement Rules, 1937
|
| Sections |
18,
18(b),
22,
26,
21
|