Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 305 of 1967, decided on 3rd October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 29th May 1967, in Regular Second Appeal No. 794 of 1964).
-----
---S. 23‑Agreement executed by husband at time of marriage that "if he ‑ violated any terms of agreement he would pay Rs. 2,000"‑Husband subsequently violating most of the terms; contracting second marriage and turning out his first wife‑Held, some of the terms of agreement being enforceable in law, wife's claim for amount of Rs. 2,000 as damages, rightly decreed by Court‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Muhammad Shafi Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by dbdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 3rd October 1967
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent, Mst. Fateh Khatoon, for recovery of Rs. 2,000 as damages for breach of a contract.
The petitioner Muhammad Aslam at the time of his marriage with Mst. Fateh Khatoon in 1953 executed an agreement which included a clause "That if he violated any of the terms stated in the agreement he would pay Rs. 2,000 as damages". Sub sequently, he contracted a second marriage and in July 1961, turned out from his house his first wife and later divorced her. As the husband had violated most of the terms of the agreement the first wife, Mst. Fateh Khatoon, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,000 as damages.
The defendant's main contention was that the conditions mentioned in the agreement offended against section 23 of the Contract Act and as such the plaintiff was. not entitled to claim any damages for breach of the said contract.
The trial Court decreed her suit and the said judgment and decree were upheld till the second appellate Court. The defendant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court has, in our opinion, rightly come to the conclusion that at least some of the conditions laid down in the agreement were enforceable in law and as such the plaintiff was entitled to claim a reasonable compensation for breach of those conditions of the agreement. The learned Single Judge has further found that the defendant had not paid the agreed amount of Rs. 50 per month as main tenancy for about nine years. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 2,000 which was awarded as damages, was excessive or unconscionable. We, therefore, see no ground for interference with the judgment and decree of the High Court.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer