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
|