Section 31 : Contingent contract
2017 YLR 495 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III) BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB, LAHORE
Ss. 31, 32 & 202—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54—Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 19—Suit for permanent injunction—General power of attorney—Agreement to sell by the attorney—Transfer of property by the Revenue Officer on the basis of decree for permanent injunction—Contingent contract—Scope—Alleged agreement to sell was subject to conferment of proprietary rights—Respondents could not sue for enforcement of conditional agreement to sell unless proprietary rights were granted in favour of original allottee or after his death in favour of his legal heirs—When vendee had executed general power of attorney along with an agreement to sell then transaction would be under S. 202 of Contract Act, 1872—Attorney had executed agreement to sell in favour of his own kids on the basis of general power of attorney—Attorney without seeking specific prior permission could not execute an agreement to sell with his near and dear ones—Decree was passed in a suit for permanent injunction but Revenue Officer considered the same as had been passed in a suit for specific performance—Matter was remanded to the Revenue Officer for decision afresh—Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
2012 SCMR 345 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM
12—Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 19—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 31 & 32—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell State land against its tenant after acquiring its proprietary rights—Tenant’s plea was that suit was not maintainable as the agreement was executed without obtaining permission from the Collector—Validity—Agreement showed that its specific performance had been postponed till acquisition of proprietary rights by tenant—Such a reservation in the agreement showed awareness of prohibition, recognition of its legal effect and effort on part of contracting parties to keep themselves well within confines of law to act in accordance with requirements of law—Such agreement was of contingent nature enforceable after conferment of proprietary rights on tenant and could not be termed to be violative of either provisions of S. 19 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 or public policy behind thereof—Tenant after acquiring proprietary rights had denied to transfer suit land to plaintiff, thus, suit filed by him was competent—Suit was decreed in circumstances.
2012 SCMR 345 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Ss.31 & 32—Contingent contract—Enforceability—Scope.
2008 CLC 1340 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
ASHFAQ AHMED VS Ch. MAQBOOL RAZA
31—Contingent contract—Test to determine contract as `contingent’ or `absolute’–Test to determine as to whether a contract was `contingent’ or `absolute’, was that if there was mere stipulation in the agreement to sell that the sale deed would be executed after obtaining permission from any public functionary, then such a condition was not collateral to the contract and the contract could not be construed as a `contingent’ contract because the condition was forming the part of the consideration; however, where vendor was not in possession of the absolute title and execution of the sale-deed depended upon the grant of proprietary rights by the Government, then such a contract could be declared as `conditional’ or `contingent’.
2007 CLD 1336 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Dr. TARIQ MEHMOOD MEMON VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary
—-S.2(a)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.2(h), 10 & 31—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Rejection of bid—Validly enforceable contract—Bids were incited through newspapers for sale of properties—Petitioners sub
2007 MLD 1225 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Dr. TARIQ MEHMOOD MEMON VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary
—S.2(a)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.2(h), 10 & 31—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Rejection of bid—Validly enforceable contract—Bids were invited through newspapers for sale of properties—Petitioners subm
2005 CLD 884 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
State VS SHAHTAJ SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 14, 19, 23 & 31—Qanun-eÂShahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 115—Foreign Private Loans for Financing Foreign Currency Cost of the Project covered by Government of Pakistan Industrial Policy Statement, 1984–ÂAgreements for F
2004 CLD 1462 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD INAYAT VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary of Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Islamabad
—Ss. 31 & 32—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199–ÂConstitutional petition—Replication—Contingent contract-ÂRepudiation—Petitioner claimed that her sister was insured with the Insurance Corporation and she had died and the Corporation ha
1995 CLC 1323 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUSARAT VS SHAFIQ HYDER
Ss. 10 & 31—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12—Agreement to sell–Plaintiff entering into agreement of sale not with the owner of property but a third person who claimed to be the attorney of owner—Stipulation in such agreement was that if owner agreed to sale of property in question, then such sale would go through, otherwise plaintiff would be entitled to receive back his earnest money—Burden of proof that receipt of money granted to plaintiff by third person constituted concluded contract was on plaintiffs shoulders but neither he nor his witnesses had controverted averments in written statement that such agreement was subject to approval of .defendant (owner) and that he had not given such consent—Agreement in question, was thus, not a concluded contract to give rise to specific performance thereof.
1992 SCMR 1629 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ VS SUFIA BEGUM
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 31—Transferof Property Act (10 of 1982), S:53-A—Contingent contract—Condition precedent and condition subsequent—Effect—Condition in agreement for sale that vendor would secure No-objection Certificate from authorities was not a condition precedent to said agreement but rather a condition subsequent—Such condition did not go to root of agreement to nullify it; but it had effect of releasing vendees from their obligation to accept sale-deed if No-objection Certificate was not obtained by vendor, thus, annulling agreement for sale.
1988 MLD 778 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABBAS HUSSAIN VS Hafiz MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM
Contract Act 1872 —S.31–Sale of land–Penal clause in agreement of sale, enforcement of—No period for performance of penal clause in contract fixed in agreement of sale-Appellant failing to perform his part of contract within a reasonable time–Respondent, held, not deprived of enforcing performance of penal clause in spite of absence of fixed period for performance thereof–Concurrent findings of Courts below upholding right of respondent to enforce penal clause of agreement against appellant maintained.
1985 MLD 1610 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD. VS CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE ISLAMABAD
—Ss. 25 & 32–Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.31–Custom duty–Levy or increase on export goods–Export price–Increase in–Export duty being levied or increased on export goods from Pakistan, held, would not automatically mean increase in price of value o
1981 PLD 515 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JAVED RASHID VS CENTR4AL GOVT. OF PAKISTAN
173(g) & (1) read with Foreign Exchange Regulations, 1947 and Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 56/31-Enemy property-Contingent contract for sale of property between parties-Further step in matter likely to attract financial obligations for benefit of enemy firmPetitioner/vendee pressing for enforcement but sale proceeds having to go to enemy country, performance of contract, held, impossible and contract became void under section 56 of Contract Act hence petitioner not entitled to specific performance of contract in circumstances.
1967 PLD 204 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MOHSIN A. REHMAN VS MESSRS PREMIER INSURANCE CO. OF PAKISTAN LTD.
Contract Act 1872 —– Ss. 3 & 31-Insurance-Life-insurance-Contents of proposal form, and declaration made before medical examiner, becoming untrue by date proposal accepted-Insurance Company accepting proposal and issuing policy on condition that person insured had riot in mean time suffered any injury or illness-Insured, sustaining injury in accident prior to acceptance-Fact, however, not disclosed to Company and insured dying soon thereafter Failure to disclose, held, absolved Company from all liability under policy.
1963 PLD 816 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD SAMA MONDAL VS MUHAMMAD AHMED SHEIKH AND OTHERS
Contract Act 1872 S. 31-Agreement to execute deed for sale of land after securing permission from Collector Condition held not collateral to agreement but part of consideration of contract.