Mst. AJAIB KHANUM and 2 others vs KHALID RASHID and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which dismissed a suit for specific performance in its entirety. The underlying dispute involves a property originally owned by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, which was sold to the respondents with a condition of re-sale. Subsequent agreements were executed to facilitate this re-sale, but the respondents failed to perform, leading to litigation. The trial court initially decreed half of the claim, excluding the portion related to a minor vendor. The District Court subsequently decreed the suit in its entirety, finding in favor of the petitioners. The High Court, however, accepted the respondents' appeals and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the petitioners' counsel, granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court's judgment of variance is sustainable in law. The Court also ordered the continuation of a stay order, contingent upon the petitioners furnishing security for mesne profits to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Whether a judgment of variance by the High Court in a suit for specific performance is sustainable in law?
- Can a suit for specific performance be decreed in its entirety when one of the vendors is a minor?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side in a suit for specific performance, against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents' two appeals with the result that the petitioners' suit stands dismissed in its entirety.
2. ' As stated by the learned counsel the suit property belonged to the petitioners' predecessor-in- interest (Fazal Mubeen). It was sold to the respondents' side with a condition of re-sale. The respondents also agreed subsequently to re-sell it to Fazal Mubeen by a properly executed agreement in this behalf. There was a third agreement also in which the agreement to sell to Fazal Mubeen was reiterated with some changes including that the price would be Rs,18,000. However, the respondents' side having failed to perform the contract of sale a suit for specific performance was filed which was resisted by them on various grounds including the one, that one of the vendors was a minor.
3. ' The learned trial Court decreed half of the petitioners' claim rejecting the other half which related to the interest of one vendor who was stated to be minor. Two appeals were filed - one by each side. The District Court allowed the appeal of the petitioners' side, dismissed the appeal of the respondents' side and decreed the suit in its entirety on payment of Rs,18,000. This led to two appeals filed by the respondents' side in the High Court which having been accepted, leave to appeal has now been sought.
4. After hearing the learned counsel who has reiterated the points urged in these petitions, we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to examine; whether, the judgment of variance by the High Court is sustainable in law.
5. ' Security--Rs,2,500 in each case.
6. ' Stay to continue subject to the furnishing of adequate security by the petitioners for mesne profits at the rate of Rs,500 per mensum (subject to all exceptions) to the satisfaction of the trial Court, within a month.