Section 25 : Agreement without consideration void, unless it in writing and registered, or is a promise to compensate for something done
2021 CLC 1668 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAHAL KHAN (DECEASED) VS MUHAMMAD IQBAL (DECEASED)
Ss.42 & 12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 2(d), 25 & 22—Suit for declaration—Specific performance of agreement to sell—Promise for the consideration—Agreement without consideration void, unless it is in writing and registered, or is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law—Contract caused by mistake of one party as to matter of fact—Scope—Dispute arose between the defendant and plaintiff due to consolidation proceedings—Dispute resulted into litigation, which remained pending before various forums—Plaintiff alleged that the parties entered into compromise regarding land measuring 20 kanals—Defendant failed to attest mutation in furtherance of compromise despite several requests—Plaintiff in consequence of the said denial filed suit for declaration and specific performance with consequential relief—Contention of defendant was that compromise was not enforceable because no money was paid to the defendant hence no consideration was given to buy the promise of the defendant; that the claim of plaintiff was doubtful and that even without the alleged forbearance the defendant would have successfully obtained his land—Validity—Concept of consideration as envisaged in S.2(d) of the Contract Act, 1872 did not necessarily mean or imply any monetary benefit or anything susceptible to valuation in terms of money—Defendant had admitted litigation with the plaintiff regarding consolidation proceedings and had further admitted that he had promised to give the suit land to the plaintiff—Evidence clearly reflected that at the desire of the defendant and because of abstinence or forbearance on the part of the plaintiff, litigation having spread over decades had ended—Defendant had failed to prove fraud with respect to the agreement and make out a case requiring interference in the findings of two Courts below—Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
2020 SCMR 601 SUPREME-COURT
Mirza ABID BAIG VS ZAHID SABIR (DECEASED)
Arts. 117, 118 & 119—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 25—Islamic law—Inheritance—Brother depriving sister of her legal share in inheritance through a purported compromise agreement—Purported compromise application was neither executed nor filed whereas the purported agreement was not executed—Purported agreement surfaced fifteen years after its alleged execution without an explanation offered as to why it was not disclosed earlier—Burden to prove the two documents (the purported compromise application and the purported agreement) lay on the appellant (Art. 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984) but he did not discharge the burden of proof (Art. 118)—Since appellant failed to establish fact of payment under the compromise application and agreement, both said documents were void in terms of S. 25 of the Contract Act, 1872—Appeal was dismissed with costs.
2020 PLD 508 SUPREME-COURT
Mst. BEENA VS RAJA MUHAMMAD
25—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 23 & 25—Custody of minor—Disabled mother with no substantial source of income—Hizanat, right of—Scope—Agreement for khula’ between husband and wife whereby the latter gave up custody of their minor son—Repugnancy of such agreement to Inunctions of Islam—Mother in whom right of hizanat vested could not be compelled to surrender it nor could such surrender constitute consideration for an agreement of khula’—Holy Quran, which enabled khula’, did not contemplate surrendering a child’s custody to secure khula’ nor that it could constitute valid consideration for it—To insert such a condition in an agreement of khula’ was contrary to the law, public policy, and the Injunctions of Islam—Such a stipulation would be void under S.25 of the Contract Act, 1872 because it was without consideration—Any agreement the object or consideration of which was against public policy was void, as stipulated in S.23 of the Contract Act, 1872.
2017 YLRN 33 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL MAJEED VS KISHWAR NASIM
12—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17 & 79—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 25—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Document, proof of—Procedure—Both the marginal witnesses of agreement to sell were not produced in the court—Where one marginal witness was produced, non-production of even the second marginal witness to an agreement to sell could render the same unenforceable—Alleged agreement to sell was inadmissible in evidence—Plaintiff had not examined the witnesses in whose presence sale consideration was paid to the owner of suit property—Impugned agreement to sell was void in circumstances—One who had alleged a fact must prove the same—Plaintiff was to stand on his own legs and not to take any benefit from the weakness of the case of defendant—Plaintiff had failed to discharge the onus put on him with regard to the validity and execution of agreement to sell—No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out by the plaintiff in the findings recorded by the courts below—Revision was dismissed in limine.
2016 PLD 199 SUPREME-COURT
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through AGM(Trafic), Lahore VS FOUR BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL (PVT) LTD
2(e) & Chap. II [Ss.10 to 30-C]—Agreement, rescission of—Agreement between the parties had the status of a statute and unless it was shown that any term of the agreement was violative of the law, it could not be rescinded by a party.
2016 MLD 370 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD HANIF VS Mst. RAZIA BIBI
25—Suit for declaration—Illiterate person—Scope—Contention of plaintiffs was that impugned mutation was outcome of fraud and misrepresentation—Suit was decreed concurrently—Validity—Plaintiffs were real sisters of defendants who were living in another district—Plaintiffs did not have any independent advice at the time of attestation of impugned mutation—Defendants had failed to prove as to where, when and how the transaction in question was made—Payment of sale consideration to the plaintiffs could not be proved by the defendants—No agreement could come into being without the payment of consideration—Impugned transaction was result of fraud and misrepresentation, plaintiffs should have ensured the presence of their husbands or sons for completion of transaction—Even admission of affixing thumb impression on the document by an illiterate would not lead to the conclusion that he/she had admitted the execution of transaction—No misreading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out—Revision was dismissed in limine.
2016 YLRN 203 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YASIN VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
25— Contract of sale— Pre-requisite—No contract for sale of valuable agriculture land comes into being, without payment of consideration.
2014 MLD 1380 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL MANNAN MUTTAQI VS DEFENSE HOUSE AUTHORITY
VII, R.11—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.21, 42 & 12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.13, 25 & 29—Suit for specific performance—Rejection of plaint—Object and scope—Plaintiff sought specific performance of contract on the basis of ‘token receipt’—Validity—Said token receipt was undated—Name of witness was mentioned but his signatures were missing—Cheque towards token amount was issued conditionally and amount mentioned therein was not received by defendant—Consent decree and token receipts were admitted documents, same could be taken into consideration for purpose of rejecting plaint—No amount whatsoever had passed from plaintiff to any of the co-owners/defendants—Under S.25 of the Contract Act, 1872 an agreement made without consideration was void unless the same was in writing and registered—Under S.29 of the Contract Act, 1872 agreements, the meaning whereof was not certain or capable of being made certain, were void—Suit, therefore, was barred under Ss.25 and 29 of the Contract Act, 1872—One of the defendants who alone had authority to sell the suit property had not given consent to alleged sale—Under S.13 of the Contract Act, 1872 two or more persons were said to have consented when they agreed upon the same thing in the same sense—Suit was also barred under S.13 of the Contract Act, 1872—Plaintiff never acquired any right title or interest in the suit property in terms of S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877—In case of any of the eventualities provided in O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. court was not only empowered to reject the plaint but was under obligation to reject even without application from a party—Object of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. was to save parties from rigors of frivolous litigation at the very inception of the proceedings—Plaint was rejected by High Court.
2013 MLD 1891 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHAMA ENTERPRISES VS CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT
25(3)—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 56 & 115—Promise to pay—Breach—Suit for recovery of balance amount of work done by plaintiff—Defendant’s plea that suit filed on 27-1-1997 for work done on 3-7-1990 was barred by limitation—Proof—Defendant in its report dated 6-2-1996 submitted in High Court in reply to constitutional petition filed by plaintiff had admitted that final payment of Rs.6,43,156 as per bill submitted by defendant was due—Nothing on record to rebut such report duly signed by defendant, which would constitute a promise in terms of S. 25(3) of Contract Act, 1872 to pay balance amount to plaintiff—Defendant’s refusal to pay balance amount to plaintiff was a breach of such promise—Plaintiff had filed suit on 27-1-1997 after disposal of his constitutional petition by High Court on 29-9-1996—Plaintiff’s claim would fall within ambit of Art.115 of Limitation Act, 1908 and not Art. 56 thereof—Suit was decreed in circumstances.
2013 MLD 1891 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHAMA ENTERPRISES VS CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT
25(3)—Promise to pay time barred debt—Essential ingredients stated.
2012 CLD 245 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
NASEEM AHMED ANSARI VS HOUSING AND WORKS DEPARTMENT
25(3)—Mere promise to pay time-barred debt without any writing duly signed by both parties—Validity—Such promise would not be considered a good consideration and valid agreement—Principles.
2012 PLD 9 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
NASEEM AHMED ANSARI VS HOUSING AND WORKS DEPARTMENT through Secretary
25(3)—Mere promise to pay time-barred debt without any writing duly signed by both parties—Validity—Such promise would not be considered a good consideration and valid agreement—Principles.
2010 YLR 297 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FAZAL HUSSAIN SHAH VS RUSTAM
S.25—Agreement for sale of immovable property without consideration—Scope—Sale agreement in which consideration for transfer of property is lacking, cannot be treated as valid agreement and cannot be enforced in view of S.25 of Contract Act, 1872.
2010 YLR 297 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FAZAL HUSSAIN SHAH VS RUSTAM
S.28—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25—Void agreement—Un-enforceable agreement to sell—Judgment at variance—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was decreed by Trial Court in favour of plaintiff but Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit—Validity—Consideration of sale of land in question was totally lacking ab initio and it had not been established from evidence available on record to show that parties were close relatives inter se, who, out of love and affection transferred the property, thus such sale agreement was void agreement and could not be specifically enforced—By virtue of S.28 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, Court could refuse specific performance of contract on the ground that consideration was inadequate—Suit filed by plaintiff was completely barred under S.25 of Contract Act, 1872 and S.28 of Specific Relief Act, 1877—Lower Appellate Court had rightly reversed judgment and decree passed by Trial Court for specific performance of contract—There was no jurisdictional defect in the judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
2008 SCMR 1182 SUPREME-COURT
Mst FATEH BIBI VS MUHAMMAD SAEED
42—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.17, 18 & 25—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.120—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Suit for declaration—Sale deed executed by plaintiff in favour of defendants including her mother—Plaintiff after more than 15 years challenged validity of sale deed on ground of fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration—Proof—Plaintiff’s own brother was available in transaction along with her husband and one of the vendees to the extent of 1/3rd share was her own real mother—If any fraud was intended to be committed, mother should not at all have been shown as a vendee and her real brother as marginal witness to sale deed—Had plaintiff not entered into valid transaction, she would not have slept over matter for such a long period—Suit was hopelessly time-barred—Plaintiff infact had sold suit property for consideration and no fraud or misrepresentation had taken place—Suit was dismissed in circumstances.
2008 CLD 840 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PACIFIC LEASING COMPANY LTD. through Executive Vice-President VS BRITISH BISCUITS COMPANY (PVT.) Ltd. through Chief Executive
Ss.9 & 10—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11 & O.XXI, R.2—Recovery of loan—Principle of res judicata—Applicability—Deciding main suit without deciding pending applications—Decree passed against borrower company was satisfied out of court by new management-At the time of withdrawal of execution proceedings, fresh lease agreement was signed by new management—On failure of new management to satisfy fresh lease agreement, Financial Institution filed suit before Banking Court which was dismissed on the ground of res judicator—Validity—Promise to pay decretal amount in 48 rentals was a valid consideration within the contemplation of S.25 of Contract Act, 1872—Present suit was not based on agreement, which was subject-matter of earlier suit and . default was committed under fresh lease agreement—Banking Court had erroneously found that suit was hit by principle of res judicata and there was bar of O.XXI, R.2, C.P.C.—Judgment passed by Banking Court was not sustainable in the eye of law as the court had proceeded to decide main suit without deciding pending applications—Disposal of suit without disposing of pending applications was violative of law-Judgment and decree passed by Banking court was Set aside and case was remanded to Trial Court for deciding the suit and application for leave to defend the suit on merits within the parameters of law—Appeal was allowed accordingly.
2007 CLD 1459 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SOALEH MUHAMMAD VS CANTONMENT BOARD
—S.25(3)—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.19—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XII, R.6—Commitment to make payment—Enforceability of—Limitation—Function of public functionaries-Scope—-To bring the case within the purview of S.25(3), Contra
2006 SCMR 930 SUPREME-COURT
FATEH KHAN (deceased) through L.Rs. and another VS SURRIYA BEGUM
–Ss. 39 & 42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.4, 18, 25 & 214—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.60—General power of attorney by an illiterate Pardanashin lady for Court case allegedly containing power in favour of attorney to sell her property—Sale
2006 SCMR 917 SUPREME-COURT
STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS PAKISTAN STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED
–S.12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Vendor (allottee) associated with himself plaintiff and another person in equal share in matter of getting transfer of property from Settlement Department—Ve
2006 YLR 1290 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA VS SAMI ULLAH
—S. 25—Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S.42—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.91 & 144—Suit for declaration—Limitation—Sale vide mutation by deceased in favour of his sons/defendants was challenged by daughters/plaintiffs in suit for declarat
2005 CLD 1840 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ADIL JAMSHED VS MUHAMMAD UBAIDULLAH
—Ss. 24 & 25—Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.118—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3—Void contract—Negotiable instrument—Presumption—Suit for recovery of money—Contract without consideration was void—person
2005 CLD 255 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS Messrs CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
-Ss.2(d) & 25(1)(2), (3)—Contract without consideration is void unless it comes under any of the exceptions set out in S.25(1)(2)(3) of the Contract Act, 1872—Encashment of the guarantees can form consideration under S.2(d) of the Contract Act, 1872–
2005 YLR 301 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
REHMAT ALI VS FAQIR MUHAMMAD
—-Ss. 12, 17 & 21 (c) (g)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.25 & 29—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Suit decreed by Courts below concurrently–Defendant for first time raised pleas before Hi
2005 YLR 106 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MANAN FEROZ VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL
—-S.5 & Sched. —-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 104—-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Suit for recovery of past maintenance—Husband through compromise arrived at during earl
2005 CLC 1751 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Syed ALI HUSSAIN NAQVI VS ALI SHER NAQVI
—O. XXXVII, R.2—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25—Suit for recovery of amount on basis of promissory note and its receipt—Execution of promissory note and receipt not denied by defendant—Plaintiff produced no evidence regarding actual payment of a
2005 PLD 50 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KARIM BUX VS MANZOOR AHMED
—S. 12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 25—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, R. 5—Suit for specific performance of contract—Suit had been concurrently decreed by trial Court and Appellate Court—Defendants being dissatisfied with concurrent
2005 CLC 1182 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
RAEES AHMED through L.Rs. VS PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY
—Ss. 42 & 55—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.87—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25—Suit for declaration and injunction—Plaintiff had purchased a plot from a private party in a Housing Colony—Plaintiff claimed that he approached the Housing Aut
2004 PLD 108 SUPREME-COURT
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB VS Messrs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED
—-S. 2—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Transfer of State land without consideration —Validity–State land under Government Grants Act, 1895 could be transferred without price to welfare institutions or keepi
2004 SCMR 1102 SUPREME-COURT
SADAR DIN VS Mst. KHATOON
—-S. 25—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Agreement without consideration—Dispute was with regard to ownership of half portion of the suit house—Plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of the half p
2004 CLD 343 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
DIAMOND FOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS JOSEPH WOLF GmbH & CO
?
2003 CLD 1559 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SINDH FLOUR MILLING CORPORATION VS Messrs GOOD LUCK INDUSTRIES
—-S.7—Industrial. Development Bank Ordinance (IV of 1961), Ss. 39 & 40—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25(3)–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.19—Federal Government Notification S.R.O.-710(I)/76—Time for filing suit for recovery of amount—Limitatio
2001 CLC 1650 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BASHIR VS NOOR HASSAN
—-S. 42—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.122—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25—Suit for declaration—Gift, validity of—Plaintiffs had alleged that they had never made gift of suit-land in favour of the defendants and that mutation of gift
2001 MLD 1925 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MALIK HAJI VS ABDUL RAZAQ
—-Ss.10 & 25—Lawful contract—Essentials—Lawful agreement or contract consisted of three essentials; namely proposal; acceptance and consideration—Any transaction without consideration could not be lawfully enforced nor on the basis thereof decla
1997 CLC 750 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS AZIZ AHMED KHAN
S.15—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25—Tenant’s main reliance was on undertaking executed by previous owner of premises in favour of tenant wherein he had bound himself not to sell property in question to any other person and in case he contemplated sale he would prefer tenant—Effect—Such undertaking did not show for what consideration same was given and presumption must be that such undertaking was without consideration—Such undertaking would, thus, be void on that account—Additionally, no one can contract himself out of rights guaranteed to him under any law—Alleged undertaking even if executed by previous owner of premises would be of no legal effect.
1996 MLD 1681 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHIZAR HAYAT VS STATE
—-S.12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.2(d) & 25—Development of defendants’ land by plaintiff by putting in money and labour—Defendants agreeing to give plaintiff 15/16 shares of land which was developed entirely through his efforts—Investment, fi
1996 CLC 698 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS ABDUL WAHID KHAN
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 25(3)—Promise to pay—Nature and extent—Promise to pay, falling within terms of S. 25(3), Contract Act, 1872 could be absolute or conditional–If promise was absolute, there would be no question of promise refusing to accept same—Necessity for acceptance would arise only when proposal or offer to pay a time-barred debt was conditional and requisite acceptance could be expressed or implied—In case of refusal to accept, the conditional offer or proposal could not be deemed to mature into a promise equivalent to an agreement and would not revive a time-barred debt or sustain an action therefor.
1995 PLD 395 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB VS NASEER HUSSAIN
Contract Act 1872 S. 25—Void agreement—Agreement without consideration is void.
1995 CLC 880 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD. VS ADAMJEE INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Contract Act 1872 S. 25(3)—Promissory note expressing promise to pay time-barred debt–Validity—Agreement or promise made in writing and signed by a person to be charged therewith to pay debt of which creditor might have enforced payment, but for the law of limitation, of suits; would be a valid contract—Promissory note for, or a promise to pay time-barred claim was, thus, valid.
1994 MLD 2276 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS HUSSAIN CORPORATION LTD.
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss.2(b)(e), (h), 9 & 25(3)–Promise; agreement and contract—Offer or proposal in itself was not a “promise”, but it would become a `promise’ only when it was accepted—Promise in itself could be equivalent to an agreement whereas an agreement enforceable by law was a contract—Rule that a proposal or acceptance of any promise need not be in writing, as laid down in S.9 of the Contract Act, 1872, would remain applicable to acceptance of proposals covered under S.25(3) of the Act, which means that such acceptance could be otherwise than in words and need not be in writing at all.
1994 MLD 656 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ISLAMUDDIN TAIMURI VS ESMAIL MUHAMMAD BAHI
Contract Act 1872 —-S.25—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2—Suit was based on cheque—Consideration—Proof—Plaintiff failed to prove any consideration against which defendant had issued cheque in question–Defendant’s assertion that said cheque had been issued by coercion and undue influence exerted by Authorities on behalf of plaintiff, remained uncontroverted due to lack of cross-examination on that point—Cheque in question, was thus, without consideration.
1993 PLD 62 SUPREME-COURT
SAFYYA VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
—- S. 25 — Sale-deed without consideration—Validity —- Fitness of vendor. To enter into contract of sale — Evidence of vendees belied by entries in death certificate — Effect — Plaintiff’s plea that vendor was unconscious due to illness and
1993 CLC 2348 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SANA ULLAH VS MUHAMMAD MANZOOR
Ss. 24 & 25—Mere inadequacy of consideration was no ground to hold that an agreement was void unless same was set up as a ground and proof furnished with supporting evidence that apart from inadequacy there were other grounds to avoid contract.
1993 CLC 1565 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ANWARUL HAQ VS STATE OIL COMPANY LTD.
Contract Act 1872 S. 25—Benefit of S. 25, Contract Act, 1872—Facts to be established for claiming benefit under S. 25, Contract Act, 1872 were that there must be a promise; which must be signed by a person to be charged therewith or by an agent generally or specially authorised in that behalf; and there must be a debt which was barred by time.
1992 MLD 1135 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AZIZUL HASSAN VS SHAHIDA AHMED ASHRAF
Contract Act 1872 —-S.25—Contracts—Consideration, payment of—Oral word of plaintiff remaining uncorroborated that he had made under-hand payment of specified amount—Payment of such specified amount was not proved in circumstances.
1991 SCMR 1508 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD ILYAS VS IJAZAN
Contract Act 1872 —S. 25—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Sale of land without consideration—Effect—Two daughters of deceased brought suit against petitioner that their father an old sick man was living with petitioner who misusing his fiduciary relationship as his son-in-law, had manipulated a sale-deed in his own favour in respect of land owned by deceased—Suit was dismissed by Trial Court but decreed by Appellate Court as also by the High Court—Leave to appeal—Two Courts below found that petitioner had failed to prove sale and payment of consideration and consequently decreed the suit of respondent’s viz. daughters of deceased—No good ground had been shown as to why the deceased would deprive his daughters of land and give it away to the husband of another daughter i.e., petitioner—Petition being without merit was dismissed in circumstances.
1991 CLC 1758 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS KURNOOL MUHAMMAD MUNEER
Contract Act 1872 S. 25(3)—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 59—Suit for recovery of loan–Defendant’s letter acknowledging liability for the entire amount claimed and promise to pay the same upto specified date—Such letter was clear and specific promise to pay the entire amount due, on account of overdraft within meaning of S.25(3), Contract Act, 1872, furnished fresh cause of action for filing suit for recovery of entire sum due notwithstanding the fact that period of limitation for part of amount claimed, had expired earlier—Defendant having made part payment of specific amount on specific date as acknowledged by his earlier letter and his promise to pay the balance amount extended period of limitation —Suit filed for recovery of such acknowledged amount within period of three years was thus within limitation.
1990 PLD 681 SUPREME-COURT
PERVAIZ AKHTAR VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
S.13 ??? Limitation Act QX of 1908), S.19 ??? Contract Act (X of 1872), S. 25?? “Rent due” includes time?barred rent ??? Word “default”?? ?Connotation ???Time? barred rent does not preclude landlord for the enforcement of his right for eviction of tenant on the ground of default.
1990 SCMR 966 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH VS ALLAH BAKHSH
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 25—Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 19–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Plaintiff’s entitlement to enforce agreement—Defendants were allotted State land with the purpose eventually to grant proprietary rights on fulfilment of certain conditions—Defendants by a subsequent agreement, acknowledged right of plaintiff also as 1/3rd share-holder in the allotment and other rights ensuing therefrom, and undertook that if they failed to fulfill such acknowledgement, defendant would be entitled to obtain a decree against them—Plaintiff having obtained such a decree, defendants’appeal and revision against that decree failed—Leave to appeal—Defendants’contention was; that the agreement was without consideration; and that plaintiff was not entitled to enforce the agreement as the same contravened S. 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912—Agreement between the parties showed that the same was not without consideration—Defendants acknowledged the “right” of plaintiff as original shareholder to the extent of 1/3rd, and also acknowledged that in pursuance of the same right, he was already in effective possession of suit land as its owner—First contention of defendants had, thus, no force—Further contention that the agreement was in contravention of S. 19 of Act V of 1912, was not pressed before High Court—Supreme Court thus did not consider it necessary or proper to examine same—Defendants’contention’that plaintiff did not pay his share of Government dues in accordance with agreement, having been concluded by findings of fact, there was no justification for grant of leave to appeal—Leave was refused.
1990 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT
GHULAM ALI VS GHULAM SARWAR NAQVI
Ss. 25, 23 & 16 — Relinquishment of her inheritance by a female co-sharer without consideration — Such relinquishment having been declared void being against public policy under S. 23 of the Contract Act cannot be revived and given life merely because it suffered from another serious infirmity and such infirmity could not be overcome by a resort to exceptions given in S.25 of the Act- -Presumption would be that relinquishment was not on account of natural love but on account of social constraints.
1990 MLD 1592 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLAH RAKHA VS MUHAMMAD YOUSAF
Contract Act 1872 ——S.25 Cantonments Act (II of 1924), S.73–Agrecmcnt of sale of land within cantonment area without the permission of Cantonment Authorities was neither opposed to any law nor to public policy within the meaning of S.23, Contract Act, 1972.
1989 PLD 440 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WALI MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM
Ss.25 & 215??Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.115??Principal and agent??Alienation of Principal’s property by agent??Principal’s contention that agent had alienated his property without his consent and that no consideration was passed to’ him??Findings of First Appellate Court neither adverted to the evidence in respect of consideration nor decided the effect of non?payment of consideration?Defendants’ evidence including agent’s statement in Court brought forth three versions which mutually contradicted and belied each other??Finding of First Appellate Court thus suffered from misconstruction of evidence on record.
1989 MLD 4098 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB BANK LTD. VS KHALID AKBAR
—O.XXXVII–Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25(3)–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 57 & 64-A–Suit for recovery filed in ordinary course and not under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. wherein Article 57, Limitation Act, read with Section 25(3), Contract Act, was app
1989 MLD 2525 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FAIZ MUHAMMAD VS RAMZANALI
—O.VII, R.11–Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.10–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120–Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 25 (3)–Suit for recover of amount-Document containing acknowledgement of debt as well as definite promise to pay–Limitation–Star
1988 CLC 2023 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUMTAZ BEGUM VS ABDUR RASHID
Contract Act 1872 S. 25–Sale-deed–Inadequate consideration–Effect–Plea of inadequate consideration for execution of sale-deed, held, would not be material when bona fide intention to make transfer on part of vendor was adequately proved.
1988 PLD 481 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
B. L. VS SHAMIM QURESHI
S.25(3)–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), 5.19– Time-barred debt –Suit for recovery on basis of acknowledgement -Effect –Where suit was factually barred by time, same would be deemed to be within time under 5.25, Contract Act, 1872 where debtor had acknowledged such debt and promised to pay the same, provided such acknowledgement was made within three years of filing of suit –Time would run from the date of fresh premise–Suit filed within three years from date of fresh acknowledgement would be within time.
1987 PLD 65 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MEHBOOB VS MST.. SARWAR JAN
— S. 25, Explanation 2-Inadequacy of consideration-Effect on agreement-Agreement to which consent of promisor was freely given, held, would not be void merely because of inadequacy of consideration-Such inadequacy of consideration, could be taken into ac
1986 MLD 2512 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. VS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION CO
—S.100–Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.25(3)–Agreement–Question whether a separate and independent agreement came into existence to pay time-barred debt within S.25(3), Contract Act being a question of fact required not only to be pleaded specifically b
1986 MLD 344 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HUSSAIN CORPORATION LTD. VS HABIB BANK LTD
Contract Act 1872 —S.25(3)–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100–Time-barred debt–Promise to pay–Effect–Promise to pay time-barred debt on part of debtor, held, construed renovation, on which recovery suit could be based independently of original debt and refusal on part of debtor to pay interest, would not make promise to pay principal amount ineffective–High Court in appellate jurisdiction, upholding judgment of first appellate Court dismissed second appeal.
1983 CLC 790 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SARDAR AHMAD BHATTI VS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, LYALLPUR EAST
48-Contract Act (IX of’ 1872), Ss. 25(3) & 60-Cooperative Societies Act (11 of 1912), S. 44 and Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925), S. 59(2)-Loan-Repayment of-Execution of decree-Limitation-Recovery as arrears of land revenue-Right to take out execution becoming time-barred-Judgment-debt not extinguished and decree not ceasing to exist as limitation runs against remedy and does not discharge debt-Decree passed against by civil Court under 1912 Act remaining in force when in meantime Act 1912 repealed by Act 1925 which empowers Registrar to recover amount due under a decree of civil Court as arrears of land revenue-Mode of recovery as arrears of land revenue enforced against petitioner, held, not illegal.
1979 CLC 376 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ADAMJEE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS ASSOCIATED ITALIAN COMMERCIAL AGENCIES (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI
Ss. 25 & 127-Expression “Guarantee” in S. 127-Acceptance of responsibility by an Indentor without any consideration-Does not amount to “guarantee” within meaning of S. 127 of Contract Act, 1872-Indentor acts only as an intermediary in dispute on behalf of suppliers-Mere information by Indentor of foreign suppliers of goods having been contacted and their having agreed to settle matter and compensate purchaser of goods-Held, cannot operate to hold Indentor personally liable for any damages.
1977 PLD 521 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI VS K.S. KAMAL
25(3)–Promise to pay debt barred by time-Son of deceased debtor, while acknowledging debt of hi3 father, making promise to pay same-Suit although factually barred by time yet within time on basis of promise-Son. held, liable to pay debt of his father to extent of money received or to be received by him.
1967 PLD 152 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
FATEMA KHATOON AND ANOTHER VS NUR MIAH AND OTHERS
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 2(d) & 25-ConsiderationMeaning-A depositing money with B for safe custody till A purchases a rickshaw-B accepting money on condition to return same on demand to A-Forbearance on one side and acceptance of responsibility on the other-Sufficient consideration to constitute a contract.
1960 PLD 801 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PUNJAB PROVINCE VS NISAR AHMAD
3 & 9-Liberal construction to be given to word “purchase” in rule 9-Purchase includes mortgage or exchange-Acquisition by inheritance or will not covered by rules-Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 23 & 25.
1959 PLD 348 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KAZI NOOR MOHAMMED VS PIR ABDUL SATTAR JAN
Contract Act 1872 S. 25 (3)-Promise in writing to pay time-barred debt obtained under coercion-Promise invalid Promisor not entitled to any relief on basis of such writing.
1957 PLD 574 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MST. BHAGNI VS MANZUR HUSSAIN SHAH
—–Gift-Services, not having any money value, rendered by donee to donor do not make the gift a hiba-bil-iwaz-Gift not invalid for want of consideration Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 25, Explanation 1.
1947 PLD 270 PRIVY-COUNCIL
VATHYAM BALARAMA SASTRI VS VAVILALA VASUDEVA SASTRI
Ss. 2 (d) and 25-Suit on basis of compromise-Consideration.