Citation Name : 2017 SCMR 1696 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ABDUR REHMAN QURESHI
Side Opponent : SAGHEER AHMAD
S. 55—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54—Agreement to sell immoveable property—Time essence of the contract —Principles—In view of the commercial nature of the property business and a widespread trend of rapid increase in prices of immovable properties, a seller could not be left at the mercy of the buyer to bind him in an agreement to sell and then delay completion of the contract for as long as he may wish hiding behind an archaic legal principle that in contract s involving immovable properties, time was generally not of the essence —Said rule was settled many centuries ago when prices of real estate remained constant and stagnant for years on end, however said rule had to be revisited and revised keeping in view the changed circumstances and the ground realties of the real estate market—In this day and age, on account of rapid increase in population demand for real estate had increased—On account of increasing demand and limited supply, property prices rose rapidly, at times in a matter of months, therefore, the principle that in real estate transactions, time was not of the essence could not indiscriminately be applied—Said principle must be interpreted and applied specifically considering the facts and circumstances of each case to balance equities, keeping the standards of reasonability in mind and ensuring that injustice was not done to either side.
Citation Name : 2017 YLR 1046 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : KHALIL
Side Opponent : SHARAFUDDIN MUSLEH SHAMI
S. 12—contract Act (IX of 1872), S.55—Suit for specific performance of contract —Time essence of contract —Scope—Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement to sell which was dismissed by Trial Court—Validity—Plaintiff had not paid a single penny at the time of agreement nor at the date fixed for performance of his part—No hurdle existed for performance of agreement on the last date for performance of agreement—Agreement to sell was defective being not signed by one of the alleged sellers and share of said seller was not specifically mentioned in the agreement—Time was essence of contract in circumstances—Plaintiff had withdrawn the amount deposited by him in the Trial Court, without permission of the court—Conduct of plaintiff did not entitle him to discretionary relief of specific performance—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2017 SCMR 902 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Malik BAHADUR SHER KHAN
Side Opponent : Haji SHAH ALAM
S. 55—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—“Time essence of the contract “—Scope — Seller/defendant agreed to sell the land in dispute to the buyer/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- vide agreement to sell; that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement while the remaining was agreed to be paid “within one and a half months”—“Time was essence of the agreement” as the words used in the agreement provided that the remaining part of the agreement would be performed within one and a half months—Plaintiff/buyer in his plaint averred that he approached the seller/defendant after expiration of the time stipulated for the performance of the remaining part of the agreement—When the plaintiff/buyer himself clearly averred in the plaint that he approached the seller/defendant after the expiration of the date stipulated in the agreement for the performance of the remaining part of the agreement, it did not lie in his mouth to state in the evidence recorded in the Court that he approached the seller/defendant before such date—Evidence thus led being an outright departure from the pleadings could not be led nor could it be read even if it was led—Supreme Court observed that with the current state of affairs every passing day brought a decrease in the value of the currency and a manifold increase in the prices of the land, thus diluting the import of the words used in the agreement expressing terminus a quo and terminus ad quem could not be approved—Supreme Court directed that since a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was received by the seller/defendant who at no stage made any effort to return the same, therefore, considering the decrease in the value of the currency and corresponding increase in the prices of the land, the seller/defendant would pay Rs.30,00,000/- over and above Rs.20,00,000/- to the buyer/plaintiff within a period of three months — Appeal was allowed accordingly.