Find a Lawyer

M. SADDIQUE versus M. SALEEM

Special Relief Act 1877 suits for specific performance of sections 12, 16, 17, 20 and 27, the discretion of the parties to denying the specific performance of a validly executed sale agreement between the parties; Was used against the shopkeeper / plaintiff. The contract considered a fine equal to the amount owed and claimed it as an alternative relief by the claimant / vendor and that the seller of the property in the dispute was then a good buyer for the price A pre-sale agreement was not reported in favor of. The plaintiff's legal position failed to consider the statement of section 12 of the Special Relief Act, 1877, unless, on the contrary, the court held that the transfer of immovable property was against the agreement. Violations cannot be adequately released through compensation. The provision of section 20 of the Act also avoided the consideration of the courts below, which provided that it was appropriate to impose an agreement, the second in particular, though it could be enforced. The amount of the money was given as the amount to be paid in case of infringement and by default the party was willing to pay the same Wendy / Plaintiff who took all the steps sincerely. By contributing to the deal by agreeing to pay the balance and not pay, it cannot be said that the shopkeepers / defendants support Will prevent the plaintiff from pursuing certain contractual performance or denying certain contractual performance even though arbitrary, but expressly property advocate from Multan lawyer