38/2003 Civil Revision Anwar Hussain (Applicant) V/S Rafiuddin & Ors (Respondent)

38/2003 Civil Revision Anwar Hussain (Applicant) V/S Rafiuddin & Ors (Respondent) Sindh High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar Order Date: 10-SEP-15

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell immovable property---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that he was a bona fide purchaser of suit shop, since he had purchased the same after cancellation of agreement between defendants and the courts below had failed to appreciate that there was a penalty clause for defaulting party in case of failure to perform their part of agree-ment---Defendant's plea was that neither there was any stipulation in agreement that either party could seek cancellation of agreement on payment of penalty nor there was any justification for cancelling the agreement after having received the earnest money---Defendant also contended that his agreement with other defendants was coupled with the possession of suit shop and therefore his agreement was protected against any third party---Held, that plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence that at the time of purchase of suit shop he had made any effort to check the status of agreement between defendants---Defendant conceded in his evidence that he had purchased three shops and even there was no separate agreement of purchase of another shop after alleged cancellation of agreement of sale between defendants rather it was only interpolation in agreement of sale between plaintiff and sub-attorney of defendants that Shop No. 3 was changed to Shop No. 6 in said agreement with a view to obtain separate portion of building which was in fact in two parts---Plaintiff admitted that he was next door neighbour as he was already in possession of suit property but at no point of time defendant was contacted by plaintiff to confirm that agreement of sale with him was cancelled by defendants----Plaintiff had failed to establish his bona fide and in such circumstances, no case was made out for interference in concurrent findings of courts below---Revision was dismissed, accordingly.