Specific performance of agreements to sell---Vendee/plaintiff failing to prove his readiness and willingness.
 |
| specific performance of agreements to sell---Vendee/plaintiff failing to prove his readiness and willingness |
1. این او سی (NOC) کا معاملہ
2. قانونی نوٹس کی ترسیل ثابت نہ کرنا
3. مالی استطاعت ثابت نہ کرنا
سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ
نتیجہ
Must read judgement
Citation Name : 2024 SCMR 1883 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : LIAQUAT ALI KHAN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD AKRAM
S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreements to sell---Vendee/plaintiff failing to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreements---Effect---First reason which prevailed with the Trial Court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff (vendee) was that defendant (vendor) had not obtained a No Demand Certificate for the house, which was held to be a condition for transfer of the house---However there was no clause in the agreements which obliged defendant to obtain such a certificate before the transfer---Regardless to this position, the evidence available on record showed that defendant had in fact obtained a No Demand Certificate from the relevant Authority, regarding property tax, water and allied charges---Defendant also produced the receipt for payment of property tax and a copy of letter from the Directorate of the Authority regarding request for issuance of NOC---Secondly, the plaintiff's claim that he had issued a legal notice to the defendant asking him to obtain an NOC from the Authority and transfer the house to him, appeared to be an abortive attempt to cover up his default because he had not produced any postal receipt showing its dispatch, which was essential particularly when defendant had denied receiving of such notice in his written statement---Thirdly, to prove readiness and willingness to perform an obligation to pay the second installment of Rs.5,000,000/- in terms of agreements, the plaintiff was under burden to adduce evidence to show availability of funds to make such payment in time, or if he did not have sufficient funds to meet his obligation, he had to prove how the funds would be available to him---No such evidence was brought on record by the plaintiff---Therefore, even assuming that defendant had committed breach, since the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the agreements which were required to be performed by him, there was a bar to specific performance in his favour---Appeal was dismissed accordingly