No Ownership, No Sale: Islamabad High Court Denies Specific Performance in Fraudulent Land Deal – 2024 CLC 1941.
"جب خود مالک نہ بنے ہوں تو جائیداد بیچنا فراڈ ہے" – اسلام آباد ہائیکورٹ کا فیصلہ (2024 CLC 1941)
پس منظر:
قانونی تنازع:
عدالتی مشاہدات اور فیصلہ:
قانونی نتیجہ:
Must read Judgement
Citation Name : 2024 CLC 1941 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD WAQAR AZEEM
Side Opponent : Dr. KARTAR LAL PIRWANI
Ss. 12, 18 & 54---Suit for specific performance of agreements to sell, permanent injunction and compensation / damages---First purchaser entering into agreement to sell with third party purchaser without acquiring rights from original owner---Scope and effect---Civil Court, allowed/decree d the suit instituted by third party purchaser to the extent of relevant prayer in the said suit i.e. "the recovery of an amount as compensation along with mesne profit @ 15% per annum w.e.f agreed date of payment till final realization of the amount"---Appellants (two in number), who were defendants in suit being first purchasers (vendees), assailed the said judgment and decree ---Plea of the appellants (vendees/first purchasers) was that the terms of the first agreement authorized them to resell the suit plot at any price and to any person; that it was also agreed that in the event they resell the suit-plot before its transfer in their name, vendor (original owner) would have no objection and would execute such documents as they might require---Validity---Record revealed that in furtherance of the terms of the First Agreement, appellants had paid Rs.20,00,000/- to vendor (original owner ) and the remaining amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- was to be paid within one month of date of execution of (first) agreement with a grace period of one week---There was nothing on the record to show that appellants had paid the remaining sale consideration to the vendor (original owner) or were in a position to make such a payment---Vendor (original owner) forfeited Rs.20,00,000/- which had been paid as earnest money by them (appellants /vendees)---Despite the First Agreement, the fact remained that the ownership of the suit-plot at all relevant times remained with the vendor (original owner), due to which, appellants(defendants / first vendees) were in no position to transfer title in the suit plot in favour of plaintiff (third party purchaser) under the terms of the Second Agreement---Appellants represented, by executing the Second Agreement with plaintiff (third party purchaser), that they were authorized to transfer the suit-plot and professed to transfer the same for consideration mentioned in the said agreement---Since the Second Agreement had no reference to the First Agreement, they (appellants) fraudulently (not erroneously) represented to plaintiff that they were authorized to sell the suit-plot---Even if it was assumed that they did so erroneously, the fact remained that they did not acquire ownership in the suit plot by the date stipulated in the Second Agreement for the transfer of the suit plot---However, plaintiff (respondent/third party purchaser) could not expect the Court to pass a decree for specific performance of the Second Agreement in his favour---Civil Court was wise in turning down plaintiff's prayer for a decree for specific performance of the Second Agreement and allowing his prayer for compensation---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court---Appeal, filed by the defendants, was dismissed with costs throughout