- Previous decree for specific performance of agreement — to — sell — subsequent suit for possession — contention that subsequent suit for possession not maintainable as being hit by principle of res-judicata — As the decree has attained finality and on the basis of it the title of respondent has been determined and he became owner of the suit property — The phraseology used in the decree is very much clear — The words “منتقل کرادے” include the complete transfer of the property, — held: the plaintiff-respondent cannot be blamed that in the previous suit, he has not prayed for possession rather the suits for specific performance are based upon agreement between the parties and every suit has to be decided according to the terms and conditions of such agreement — contention repelled. M. Rafique v. A. Qayum 2015 SCR 311 (A) AIR 1955 Calcutta 402 rel.
- The Court in the decree has clearly directed the appellant-judgment debtor to transfer the suit property to the plaintiff-respondent, the decree holder, which includes the delivery of possession —- held: in the light of the peculiar facts of this case, the question of attraction of constructive res-judicata does not arise. Muhammd Rafique v. Abdul Qayum & 2 others 2015 SCR 311 (C)
error: Content is protected !!