Specific performance Compliance Partial compliance with allocation agreement. Partial compliance with the contract was a request for allocation. The lower courts rejected the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff said the courts erred because the contract was partially enforceable. However, the High Court held that partial performance of the contract is barred under Section 17, unless the case falls under Sections 14 to 16. 2024 C L C 301


	Compliance Partial compliance with allocation agreement.	Partial compliance with the contract was a request for allocation. The lower courts rejected the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff said the courts erred because the contract was partially enforceable. However, the High Court held that partial performance of the contract is barred under Section 17, unless the case falls under Sections 14 to 16.		2024 C L C 301

مندرجہ بالا عدالتی فیصلہ (2024 C L C 301) میں عدالت نے مخصوص راحت ایکٹ، 1877 کی دفعات 12، 14، 15 اور 16 کے تحت معاہدے کی جزوی کارکردگی اور اس کی نفاذ پذیری کے بارے میں قانونی نکات کا جائزہ لیا۔ اس مقدمے کے مرکزی نکات درج ذیل ہیں:

(الف) معاہدے کی جزوی کارکردگی کا سوال:

مدعی نے دعویٰ کیا کہ وہ اور دیگر مدعا علیہان نے مدعاعلیہان/مالکان کے ساتھ ایک معاہدہ کیا تھا جس میں اس نے معاہدے کی مخصوص کارکردگی کی درخواست کی تھی۔ سول عدالت نے مدعی کا دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا، اور اس فیصلے کو اپیلٹ عدالت نے بھی برقرار رکھا۔ مدعی نے کہا کہ عدالتوں نے غلطی کی کیونکہ معاہدہ جزوی طور پر نافذ ہو سکتا تھا۔ تاہم، عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ معاہدہ کی جزوی کارکردگی دفعہ 17 کے تحت ممنوع ہے، جب تک کہ کیس دفعات 14 سے 16 کے تحت نہ آتا ہو۔

(ب) معاہدے کا علیحدہ اور آزاد پہلو:

مدعی نے معاہدے کے حصے کو آزاد اور علیحدہ بنیاد پر نافذ کرنے کے لیے دفعہ 16 پر انحصار کیا، مگر عدالت نے کہا کہ معاہدے کے کسی حصے کو دوسرے سے الگ تصور نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ اس میں کسی خاص کھیوٹ یا زمین کے مخصوص حصہ کے حوالے سے کوئی ذکر نہیں تھا جس سے معلوم ہوتا کہ مشترکہ جائیداد سے کوئی مخصوص حصہ منتقل کیا جائے گا۔

(ج) فریقین کی نیت اور معاہدے کا مقصد:

عدالت نے شواہد کے جائزے کے بعد قرار دیا کہ معاہدے کے وقت فریقین میں یہ نیت نہیں تھی کہ جائیداد کے کسی مخصوص حصے کو الگ الگ بیچا جائے۔ معاہدہ ایک مکمل اکائی کے طور پر تھا، اور معاہدے کے تحت جائیداد کو پورے طور پر خریدنا مطلوب تھا نہ کہ حصوں میں۔

(د) عدالت کا صوابدیدی اختیار:

عدالت نے کہا کہ معاہدے کی مخصوص کارکردگی کا حق مطلق نہیں ہوتا بلکہ عدالت کے صوابدیدی اختیار پر منحصر ہوتا ہے۔ دونوں عدالتوں نے اپنے صوابدیدی اختیار کو منصفانہ اور قانونی اصولوں کے مطابق استعمال کیا۔ کوئی قانونی خامی یا کمزوری پائی نہیں گئی، اور اس بناء پر مدعی کی نظرثانی درخواست مسترد کر دی گئی۔

نتیجہ: عدالت نے مدعی کی نظرثانی درخواست مسترد کرتے ہوئے نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا۔

2024 C L C 301

[Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)]

Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J

Mian ABDUL GHAFFAR----Petitioner

Versus

Mst. KISHWAR IQBAL and 5 others----Respondents

Civil Revision No.369 of 2021/BWP, heard on 16th May, 2022.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 12, 14, 15 & 16---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, severability of---Part performance---Specific enforceability---Scope---Bar contained under S. 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 ('Act, 1877')---Right of specific execution of contract---Discretion of the Court---Scope---Claim of the plaintiff was that he and two defendants/ vendees entered into agreement with the defendants (four in number) being the owners-in-possession of property out of which almost fifth of the suit-property was purchased by him (plaintiff), thus he sought the defendants/owners to perform the sale agreement to the extent of part/portion of suit-property for which he entered into the agreement---Suit was dismissed by the Civil Court, which judgment and decree was maintained by the Appellate Court---Contention of the petitioner/ plaintiff was that the Courts below fell into error while reaching to the conclusion that the agreement between the parties was not severable and the same could not be specifically enforced---Plea of the respondents ( defendants/owners)was that they had sold the suit- property to the petitioner as well as two others (defendants/respondents) as single unit and the same could not be enforced by the petitioner alone as the suit-property, being inherited, fell in common Khatas/Khasras while the sale agreement did not contain any stipulation, thus the case clearly attracted the bar under S. 17 of the Act, 1877---Validity---Pivotal question was as to whether or not the sale agreement could have been partially enforced against respondents (defendants / owners) and in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff---Section 17 of the Act, 1877, prohibited decree of performance of part of the contract, unless the case fell under Ss. 14 to 16 of Act 1877---Splitting up of the contract was not permissible and the contracts were to be performed in their entirety---Admittedly, Ss. 14 & 15 of the Act, 1877 had hardly any relevance with the present case---Petitioner had primarily relied upon S. 16 of the Act, 1877 to bring his case in the exception to S. 17 of the Act, 1877, however, the same provided that to direct performance of part of the contract, the said part had to "stand on a separate and independent footing from another part"---Though the respective shares of the purchasers were specified from whole lot (as 5058/6230 and 1172/6230) but there was no mention in the sale agreement as to which share out of the joint property inherited by the respondents/owners was to be transferred to any specific purchaser---No part of the sale agreement was "standing on separate and independent footing" or stood in isolation from the other part---There was no stipulation in the sale agreement as to khasra or Khata number(s) from which about one-fifth share (58-Kanals and 12-Marlas) out of the joint shares and / or the whole property were to be given to the petitioner, if such situation arose---Even the petitioner while appearing as a witness admitted of not having any bargain or mutual understanding between the parties regarding transfer of property from any specific Khata or extent or piece of land to which the two set of purchasers were entitled to transfer in case of independent/separate performance---Similarly, one of the defendants / owners being witness (lady), during cross-examination stood by her pleadings and statements given in the examination-in-chief, and no deal or arrangement to sell the suit property in the parts, could come out during her cross-examination--- Perusal of the sale agreement in the light of evidence further revealed that there was no intention of the parties at the time of execution of the sale agreement as to the separate sale or passing on the title of the property in parts---Only severable/separable element in the contract was that when the entire suit property were to be transferred, the same would be passed on to the petitioner to the extent of his share in the suit-property and respondents (defendants /other vendees) would have been entitled to their share in the joint whole, upon complete payment of the entire sale consideration---Record (documents duly exhibited by the defendants/owners) also revealed that one respondent/vendee (out of other set of purchasers) filed first suit and then again filed suit after about five years; and in response to each suit, respondents /owners offered said respondent/vendee to pay the entire amount against the transfer of suit property but he failed to accept the offer(s) and both the suits were dismissed---Said fate of previous suits lead to two clear inferences; (i) respondents/owners remained willing to perform their part of obligation and they were not defaulters of the sale agreement and, (ii) both set of purchasers were not in the position to purchase the whole property, therefore, they decided to contribute to purchase the whole property in terms of respective shares, hence, there was no understanding on either side to purchase the property in piecemeal or independent of each other---Both the Courts below had used their discretion in a judicious manner and as per the established principle of law and equity---Right of specific execution of contract was not absolute and its enforcement rested on the discretion of the Court---No mistake, infirmity or illegality had been noticed in the impugned orders, judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below---Revision filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, in circumstances.

Karim Nawaz and another v. Habib Ullah Khan 2013 SCMR 1408; Wali and 2 others v. Manak Ali and 2 others PLD 1965 SC 651 and Abdul Rahim and others v. Tufan Gazi and others AIR 1928 Calcutta 584 ref.

Muhammad Tayyab Zameer Khan for Petitioner.

Nadeem Akhtar Ch. and Malik Qasim Awan for Respondents.

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.