Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD YOUSAF ASI Versus FIDA HUSSAIN and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts decreeing the respondent's civil suit for specific performance of an agreement for the purchase of a plot. The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of an instalment by the allottee under a mistaken belief that the housing scheme had been cancelled amounted to a voluntary surrender or termination of the agreement. The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal, having been made under a mistaken belief regarding the scheme's cancellation and without proper clarification from the authority, did not terminate the agreement, especially as the allottee retained his security deposit to keep the application alive. The ratio is that a withdrawal of payment made under a bona fide mistake of fact does not constitute a rescission or surrender of contractual rights. The court laid down the principle that a mistake induced by misinformation regarding the subsistence of a scheme does not vitiate an ongoing allotment where the party's intent to maintain the application remains evident.
- Does the withdrawal of a plot instalment under a mistaken belief of scheme cancellation amount to a surrender of the plot allotment?
- Can a suit for specific performance be maintained when an allottee withdraws an instalment but retains the security deposit keeping the application alive?
- Whether the cancellation of an allotment by an authority based on a misunderstanding of a party's withdrawal of funds is legally sustainable?
ORDER
SAAD JAOOD JAN, J.---Respondent No,1 was an employee of respondent No,2. He was allotted a plot in a scheme prepared by respondent No,2. He paid the first instalment of Rs,300. Subsequently, he withdrew the said amount in the belief that the scheme had been annulled by the Government and fresh applications would be invited for making the allotments. He however did not withdraw the security of Rs,50 which he had earlier furnished while applying for the plot, thus keeping his application for a plot alive. Treating the withdrawal of the instalment as equivalent to the surrender of the plot already allotted to him, respondent No,1 cancelled the allotment and instead gave the same plot to the petitioner. Respondent No,1 agitated against the cancellation of his plot. When he failed to obtain any relief from respondent No,2 he filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement which he had earlier entered into with respondent No,2 for the purchase of the plot. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge but it was dismissed. He filed a revision petition in the High Court but that too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2.In support of this petition it is contended that after respondent No,1 had voluntarily withdrawn the amount of instalment which he had deposited towards the purchase of the plot the agreement between him and respondent No,2 came to an end; consequently, he could not seek its enforcement. This contention is clearly without merits. From the letter which the respondent No,1 has written for withdrawing the amount of instalment it is clear that he had written it under the mistaken belief that the Government had cancelled the scheme, and that applications for fresh allotment under the new scheme would be invited. Quite obviously, he had been misinformed about the cancellation of the scheme and respondent No,2 did not care to apprise him of the true position. In the circumstances, the withdrawal of the amount already deposited by him towards the price of the plot could hardly be treated as a step taken by him to put an end to the agreement for the purchase of the plot. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Shafiur Rahman2,457 judgments
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments