Specific performance | Decision on First and Second Purchaser in Property Dispute 2025 CLC 40.

First buyer and second buyer in specific performance 

ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا: پہلے خریدار کی agreement incomplete اور وہ زمین خریدنے کے لیے تیار نہیں تھا، اس لیے اس کا دعویٰ مسترد اور دوسرے خریدار کی خریداری برقرار رہی۔

پہلا اور دوسرا خریدار کے تنازع پر ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ

زمین کی خرید و فروخت کے مقدمات میں اکثر عدالتوں کو یہ فیصلہ کرنا پڑتا ہے کہ کون سا خریدار قانونی طور پر ترجیح رکھتا ہے، خاص طور پر جب پہلے خریدار کی ادائیگی مکمل نہ ہو اور دوسرا خریدار bona fide ہو۔ HAJI بمقابلہ SHABBIR AHMED کا کیس اسی اصول کی واضح مثال ہے۔

حقائق مقدمہ:

پہلا خریدار شبیّر احمد نے زمین کے لیے صرف earnest money ادا کی، لیکن باقی قیمت تین سال تک ادا نہیں کی اور مالک کو کوئی قانونی نوٹس نہیں بھیجا۔ اس دوران دوسرا خریدار HAJI اور دیگر نے زمین خرید کر possession حاصل کیا اور وہ bona fide purchasers for value without notice تھے۔

عدالتی فیصلے:

Trial Court نے پہلے خریدار کا دعویٰ مسترد کیا۔

Lower Appellate Court نے یہ فیصلہ overturn کر کے پہلے خریدار کے حق میں specific performance دے دی۔

ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا:

پہلے خریدار کی agreement incomplete تھی۔

وہ زمین خریدنے کے لیے تیار و رضا مند نہیں تھا۔

مالک کو کوئی نوٹس نہیں بھیجا گیا۔

دوسرا خریدار کی registered sale agreement مکمل اور قانونی اعتبار سے ترجیح یافتہ تھی۔

Civil revision allowed، Trial Court کا فیصلہ بحال اور پہلے خریدار کا دعویٰ مسترد۔

اہم سبق:

صرف earnest money دینا زمین خریدنے کے لیے کافی نہیں، باقی رقم وقت پر ادا کرنا ضروری ہے۔

Specific performance discretionary relief ہے اور عدالت کی صوابدید پر منحصر ہے۔

Bona fide purchasers کو قانونی تحفظ حاصل ہے اور ان کی registered sale agreements ترجیح رکھتی ہیں۔

مالک کو قانونی نوٹس نہ بھیجنے سے پہلے خریدار کی willingness مشکوک سمجھی جاتی ہے۔

نتیجہ:

اس کیس میں ہائی کورٹ نے پہلے خریدار کی ناکامی کو واضح کیا اور دوسرے خریدار کی قانونی خریداری کو برقرار رکھا، جو پاکستان میں زمین کے قانونی تنازعات میں ایک اہم precedent ہے۔

Must read Judgement

2025 C L C 40

[Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)]

Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J

HAJI and another---Applicants

Versus

SHABBIR AHMED and others---Respondents

Civil Revision Application No. 33 of 2011, decided on 30th July, 2024.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss.12 & 22---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.51 & 54---Suit for specific performance of contract of sale---Reciprocal promise---Failure to prove any subsequent payment qua balance sale consideration except payment of earnest money---Effect---Petitioners/subsequent purchasers claimed to be bona fide purchaser for value without notice and were in possession of suit property---Suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement to sell earlier executed in his favour---Trial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of respondent/plaintiff---Validity---Respondent/plaintiff acknowledged that no notice was published for the information of general public about purchase of suit property---Petitioners/subsequent purchasers proved that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and possession of suit land was handed over to them by the owner/seller---Respondent/plaintiff failed to prove that except payment of earnest money any subsequent payment was made by him towards sale consideration---After passage of three years since the suit was filed, balance sale price was not paid by the respondent/plaintiff to show his bona fide and willingness to complete the sale transaction, rather in his evidence he has stated that he was not ready and willing to purchase the remaining area as mentioned in the sale agreement---No legal notice had been sent by the respondent/plaintiff to the owner/seller for completing the sale transaction in 03 years, which had adverse effect on his willingness to purchase the suit land---Sale agreement in favour of respondent/plaintiff remained incomplete as compared to registered sale agreement in favour of the petitioners, which stood completed, thus, that had preference---Relief of specific performance of contract is discretionary in view of S.22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877---Evaluation of the evidence was not properly done by the Appellate Court and said significant legal principle about the discretionary relief had been overlooked while setting aside the decision of the Trial Court----Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances.

   Parkash Kumar for Applicants Nos.1 and 2.  

   Abdul Ghafoor Hakro for Respondent No.1.  

   Muhammad Arshad S. Pathan for Respondent No.2.  

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.