Judicial Dictionary



Title Specific performance of contract
Details

As regards, the argument of the learned Attorney General that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit, we are of the view that since the original lessee entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the suit property and in part performance of the contract, he was put into the possession of the suit property and admittedly he is in possession thereof and he paid good amount of money being taka 15,90,000.00 in 1978 and after the death of Syed Salamat Ali, his heirs did not execute and register the sale deed, he had every right to file the suit to pray for specific performance of contract. .....Bangladesh =VS= Hamid Ali Chowdhury, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 97] ....View Full Judgment


The High Court a submission was raised on behalf of defendant No.6 that the land has been acquired during the pendency of Regular Second Appeal, the decree of the specific performance cannot be maintained. The High Court agreeing with the submission of defendant No.6 modified the decree by ordering respondent Nos.2 to 6 to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/to the plaintiff with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff through legal heirs aggrieved by the said judgment has come up in this appeal. .....Urmila Devi =VS= The Deity, Mandir Shree Chamunda Devi, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (SC) 96] ....View Full Judgment


Specific performance for contract– Legally entitled to set back the consideration money with solatium-
Both the parties came to an agreement that the defendant No.2 would pay a sum of tk.50,00,000/- (fifty lacs) to the plaintiff A.K.M. Zakir Hussain. In such circumstances, on 19.02.2018 we directed the defendant No.2 to pay the said amount. In view of the direction, the defendant No.2 paid a sum of tk.50,00,000/-(fifty lacs) through a pay order to the plaintiff petitioner. Thereafter, this Court on 04.03.2018 passed the following order. "According to our order dated 19.02.2018, the leave petitioner has furnished a pay order bearing No.0098584 dated 26.02.2018 drawn in the name of A.K.M. Zakir Hossain issued by the Al-Falah Bank Ltd. The pay order is handed over to Dr. Muna Hossain, daughter of plaintiff-petitioner A.K.M. Zakir Hossain today." The leave petition is disposed of. The impugned judgment and decree of the High Court Division is modified accordingly. .....A.K.M. Zakir Hussain =VS= Roshanally Mohammad Hiriji, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 36] ....View Full Judgment


Specific performance of contract– Bainapatra– Appellate Court the last Court of fact–
The appellate Court discussed the evidence on record in detail and came to a definite finding that the plaintiff had been able to prove the bainapatra and the High Court Division did not commit any illegality in concurring with the findings and decision arrived at by the appellate Court, the last Court of fact. We do not find any substance in this appeal. Accordingly, this civil appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. .....Maron Chandra Shil =VS= Fatema Begum, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 340] ....View Full Judgment


Specific performance of contract– Giving a decree for specific performance is a matter of discretion of the Court–
It is settled principle of law that giving a decree for specific performance is a matter of discretion of the Court. In exercising its discretionary power, the Court will act with more freedom than when exercising its ordinary powers, and will grant or withhold relief according to the case presented. In this case, there was no agreement for sale. In fact, the plaintiff came to the Court to enforce the terms and conditions of an alleged unregistered deed of dissolution of partnership to dissolve their partnership deed which has not even been proved to be a genuine document. In view of such facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief. …Kazi Fazlus Sobhan =VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 113] ....View Full Judgment


Specific performance of contract and compensation–
It is admitted fact that the defendant No.1 had received taka 25,00,000/- from the plaintiffs. Considering the facts of unconscionable and unreasonable bargain of the plaintiffs, nature of agreement and alternative prayer made by the plaintiffs, we are of the view that justice would be best met if it is directed to the defendant No.1 to return the earnest money, that is, a sum of tk. 25,00,000/- which was received from the plaintiff No.1 and the solatium of tk.25,00,000/- since the aforesaid amount was received by the defendant No.1 in 2009, that is, said amount is lying with him for about 9 years.
The judgment and decrees of the High Court Division as well as these of the trial Court are set aside. Defendant No.1 petitioner in C.P. No.2050 of 2017 and respondent No.1 in C.P.No.2319 of 2017 is directed to pay sum of tk.50,00,000/- (25,00,000/- consideration + 25,00,000/- as solatium) to the plaintiffs within 4(four) months from the date of communication of this judgment and order to the trial Court, in default, the judgment and order of the High Court Division shall stand. …Kazi Rafiqul Islam =VS= Anwar Hossain Advocate(Md.), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 229] ....View Full Judgment


Specific performance of contract–
A suit for specific performance of contract the duty of the Court is to see whether or not there was an agreement for sale and if there was any breach of such agreement, then to order or reject specific performance of contract. ...Nayeb Ali(Md.) =VS= Abdus Salam Khan(Md.), (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 1] ....View Full Judgment