Mst. Razia Roshan vs Mst — 2025 YLR 2452 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Mst. Razia Roshan VS Mst. Farheena Ali Ss. 32, 34 & 35---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 12---Contingent contract---Specific performance, seeking of---Scope---While entering into agreement it was disclosed to the buyer/vendee that there were tenants in the property, whom the seller /vendor would vacate within two months from the date of the agreement---Both the vendee and the vendor filed their respective suits seeking the performance of the agreement to sell and cancellation of the same agreement---Trial Court (Single Judge of High Court ) decreed the suit seeking cancellation of the agreement and dismissed the other one---Validity---Though not explicitly stated, the contract between the parties appeared to be a contingent contract for that the execution of the sale deed would only occur when the tenements were vacated---The agreement to sell was to proceed once the property was rid of the tenants---The contract, however, did not state what will happen if the tenants were not vacated---The only outcome given was that the time for performance would be mutually agreed upon if the tenants did not vacate---Section 32 of the Contract act, 1872 stipulates that contingent contracts, to do or not to do anything if an uncertain future event happens, cannot be enforced by law unless and until that event has occurred; if the event becomes impossible, such contracts become void---Section 34 stipulates that if the future event on which a contract is contingent is the way in which a person will act at an unspecified time, the event shall be considered to become impossible when such person does anything which renders it impossible that he should so act within any definite time, or otherwise than under further contingencies---Section 35 stipulates that contingent contracts to do or not to do anything if a specified uncertain event happens within afixed time, become void if, at the expiration of the time fixed, such event has not happened or if, before the time fixed, such event becomes impossible---In the present case, two months was the time frame within which vendor would try to get the tenants vacated; said time frame was mutually extended for two months, however later vendee was informed that the tenants refused to leave and, therefore, the event upon which the contract was contingent could not happen anymore---In terms of S.35 of the Contract act, 1872, the contract was frustrated---Remedy of specific performance is discretionary and cannot be claimed as of right by any party---No illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment had been noticed---appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Mst. Razia Roshan vs Mst — 2025 YLR 2452 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR