Syed ASHFAQ HUSSAIN vs Syed TAHIR HUSSAIN
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute between two cousins regarding the sale of a tractor. The respondent (plaintiff) had sold a tractor to the petitioner (defendant) for Rs. 5,000, but the petitioner failed to pay the agreed amount. Consequently, the respondent filed a suit for the possession of the tractor or, in the alternative, for the recovery of the sale price. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, granting the alternative relief of recovery of Rs. 5,000. This decree was upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the Lahore High Court in a Regular Second Appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the respondent was only entitled to sue for the price, not possession. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court's decree explicitly granted the alternative relief of Rs. 5,000. The Court held that since the petitioner was free to discharge his liability by paying the decreed amount in execution, there was no ground for interference. The petition was dismissed.
- Can a plaintiff seek alternative relief for possession of a chattel or recovery of its price in a suit for breach of contract?
- Does a decree granting alternative relief allow a defendant to discharge liability by paying the monetary amount in execution?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Syed Ashfaq Hussain petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, 18-3-1979, dismissing his R.S.A. Syed Ashfaq Hussain petitioner and Syed Tahir Hussain (respondent herein) are first cousins inter se. The dispute between them relates to a tractor. It was purchased by Syed Tahir Hussain from one Abdul Razzaq P.W.
1. In token of the receipt of the consideration Abdul Razzaq P.W. Had executed a receipt (Exh. D/1) in his favour. Syed Tahir Hussain then sold the tractor to Syed Ashfaq Hussan, petitioner for Rs.5,000 and delivered the tractor to him. Syed Ashfaq Hussain, however, did not pay him the abovesaid amount. Syed Tahir Hussain was, therefore, constrained to file a suit against him for possession of the tractor and for the recovery of Rs.5,000 in the alternative.
2. The suit was contested; issues were framed; evidence was led by the parties and the suit was ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal but it was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 17-7-1977. He then filed an R.S.A., which was also dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment.
Hence the present petition.
3. The main contention pressed by the petitioner's counsel was that after having sold the tractor Syed Tahir Hussain respondent could only sue for recovery of the price of the tractor i.e. Rs.5,000 and not for the possession of the tractor. He submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the above said amount.
4. We notice that the relief sought by the petitioner was granted by the trial Court in the following words:---- "In the light of my findings on Issues Nos. 1 to 5 and 7, the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of the suit tractor or of Rs.5,000 in the alternative as prayed is decreed in his favour and against the defendant. Parties to bear their own costs of the suit."
Ashfaq Hussain petitioner is, therefore, free to discharge his liability by paying Rs.5,000 to the respondent, in execution of the decree and the matter does not, therefore, seek interference by this Court.
In view of the matter the petition is dismissed.