Mst. SAMINA RIFFAT vs ROHAIL ASGHAR S — 2021 SCMR 7 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. SAMINA RIFFAT VS ROHAIL ASGHAR S. 55---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54---Agreement to sell immoveable property---Time essence of the contract---Scope---Generally, in respect of sale of immovable property, time was not considered as of the essence of the Contract---However, parties may consciously strike a deal to make time essence of the contract by providing certain consequences for breach of reciprocal obligation casted upon them, and in such cases, time was treated as essence of the contract. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 7 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. SAMINA RIFFAT VS ROHAIL ASGHAR S. 51---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Agreement to sell immoveable property---Failure to pay balance consideration within the time stipulated in the agreement---Forfeiture of earnest money---Scope---To avoid making payment of balance sale consideration the vendee could not import or press any condition extraneous to the conscious bargain struck between the parties---In cases arising out of sale of immovable property, a vendee seeking specific performance had to demonstrate his readiness and willingness to perform his part of reciprocal obligation as to payment of balance sale consideration---In the first place, willingness to perform ones contract in respect of purchase of property implied the capacity to pay the requisite sale consideration within the reasonable time---In the second place, even if he had the capacity to pay the sale consideration, the question still remained whether he had the intention to purchase the property---In the present case the plaintiff-vendee on one hand failed to offer sale consideration within the agreed period; secondly he did not tender the said amount despite order of the Trial Court, and even after his suit for specific performance was dismissed, he made no effort to deposit the balance consideration---In such circumstances the plaintiff was not entitled to return of his earnest money, however out of sheer benevolence defendants-appellants each agreed to refund 50% of the earnest amount received by them to the plaintiff as a humane consideration---Supreme Court after recording its appreciation for the conduct of the defendants, displaying grace toward the plaintiff, directed each defendant to refund 50% of the earnest money received by them to the plaintiff through pay order within 45 days---Appeal was allowed with the said modification.

Mst. SAMINA RIFFAT vs ROHAIL ASGHAR S — 2021 SCMR 7 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 SCMR