DEFENDANT

TEAM CODE : M
 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………… 2

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION . .……………………….. 5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………… 5
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ……………………………………… 7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………… 8
 WRITTEN PLEADINGS …………………………………………. 8
 PRAYER ………………………………………………………………13
 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 Civil procedure code(v of 1908) section 15
 Transfer of property act 1882
 Contract act 1872
 Specific Relief act 1899
 Section 55 of transfer of property act 1882
 Section 11 of conract act 1872
 Section 73,74,75 of contract act 1872
 Section 54 of transfer of property act 1882
 Section 10 of contract act 1872
 Section 37 of contract act 1872
 Section 2(b) of contract act 1872
 Section 2(d) of contract act 1872
 Section 2(a) of contract act 1872
 Section 27 of contract act 1872
 Quran 4.29
 PLD2013 SCP 641
 2006 SCMR 1630
 1995 CLC 813
 , PLD 1997 Lah 300,

 1985 CLC 396.

 2010PLD765
 CLC 1877 ,1965 PLD 690
 I bn Taymiyyah al-Fatwa al- Kubra.Beirut. Dar –Kutub al –Ilmiyyah, 1997. 1971 PLD
 784, 1996 PLD 797
 1994 PLD 127,
 2001 PLD158,
 CLC114, Review Vs. Ks. Sivaprasad Hassan al-Madkhalli 20dirasah al-Fiqh al –.
 2011 PLD 44,
 2011 PLD 44 SCP ,
 Chitter Mal Narlan Das vs.Commissioner of Sales tax
 SCI 1970 Islami,p 3
 2010 SCMR 334 , 2016 2015, 2013 YLR 1017
 2005CLC758
 2010 SCMR 829,
 PLD 2013 Sindh 290, 2009 SCMR276,
 3

 911 AC301,
 (1916) 14 All. LJ 597.
 2010 CLC 1843 ,
 2009 SCMR 276,
 2012 CLD 66;
 2013 CLD,
 1872, 2010 CLC 1843. Sindh 290, 2014 CLC 466=2009
 CLD 616,
 138 IC 658.

 1986CLC2983,
 1994CLC132,
 1987CLC795,
 1985CLC1112,
 1985CLC1112,
 PLD1985SCP519
 , PLD Lah45
 , 1984SCMR94
 , 1986MLD1920,
 1995CLC105.
 PLD2008 987

 1928 AC 518.
 2002CLC 607.
 ,2002SCMR1150,
 PLD1983Kar.340,
 2002MLD550,
 1991CLC1591
 , 2002MLD550,
 1991CLC1591,
 1993MLD1500 ,
 2002MLD1500 ,
 2002MLD550
 , 2001CLC820
 , 1986CLC2983
 , 1994CLC132,
 1987CLC795
 , 1985CLC1112
 , 1985CLC1112,
 PLD1985SCP519
 , 2015SCP187
 , 2011YLR2825 ,
 2011 YLR2825 ,
 4

 2007CLC1372

 , 2006SCMR721,
 PLD1974Lah.13
 , 2006 Kar.523
 ,2001CLC104
 ,1982SCMR453,1997Kar.62,

 Specific relief act 1877, Schwartz,aln, “the case for specific performance” (1979).
Faculty scholarships series. 1118. http://dgitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1118.,
45U.CHI
 court of Georgia. Hornsby Vs. Smith (133 ALR 684), Marrow Vs. Scott , Medlock Vs .
Brown ,163, 4a.520 (136.S.E.551).

 Section 2(d) of contract act 1872.

 Section 55 of contract act 1872, PLD 1965Kar 274.
 Section 2(d) of contract act 18872
 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Honourable Civil Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit .

Under Section 151 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (V OF 1908)

Section15. Court in which suits to be instituted.—Every suit shall be instituted in the

Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

PRELIMINIARY OBJECTIONS:
1. That the plaintiff has not come in the court with clean hands , hence the suit is not

maintainable in the eye of law.

2. That the plaintiff has concealed this fact that she has not transferred the house in favour

of defendants , although she received amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- , as Rs 100,000/- in

advance and Rs. 250,000/- in installments.

3. That the defendant No.2 has been separated from defendant No .1 , so there is no

liability because defendant No.1 and defendant no.2 agreed to perform contract

mutually. Clashes were arose between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 for one year,

so their marriage broken down and they will be divorced . If defendant No.1 and

defendant No.2 not divorced then defendant No.2 still not under obligation to perform

1
PLD2013 SCP 641,2006 SCMR 1630 ,P 2011 K 257
 6

contract because they mutually give consent to perform contract. Defendant No.1 and

defendant No.2 was living apart and they have not any legal relations . Whatsoever

pending on part of the defendant No.2 , as she is no more wife of defendant No. 1, so

she is not legally bound to pay the remaining amount .

4. That the defendant have already paid Rs. 3,50,000/- and plaintiff is bound to transfer the

house in favour of answering the defendants ,which was mutually decided and to get

the remaining amont and transfer the house in favour of defendants.

5. That the defendants time and again requested the plaintiff for transfer of suit house in

their matter on one pretext or the other and also taken away Rs. 3,50,000/-.

ON FACTS

1. Para No. 1 of the plaint is correct , but the defendants have agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/-

have agreed to pay Rs. 10,00,000 instead of Rs .1200,000/-.

2. Para No. 2 is correct to the extent that defendant paid Rs 10,00,000/- and out of that

the answering defendants paid Rs. 100,000/- as consideration amount and

Rs. 250,00/- as installments.

3. Para No. 3 incorrect. The plaintiff was bound to transfer the house in favour of

defendants , hence para is denied.

4. Para No.4 is correct as stated .

 7

5. Para No.5 is correct as stated .

6. Para No.6 is incorrect .The agreement is executed between the parties to the extent of

Rs. 10,00,000/- not Rs .1200,000/-. and the defendants have paid Rs. 3,50,000/-.

7. Para No. 7 is incorrect .The possession was handed over to the answering defendants ,

But time and again defendants requested the time and again defendants requested the

Plaintiff to fulfill his part performance , but she had not fulfilled.

8. Para No. 8 is correct .The agreement was executed between the parties , so the defendant

No. 2 is equally responsible for the said agreement .

9. Para No. 9 is incorrect . The defendants have arranged the payment , but the plaintiff

not transferred the suit property in favour of answering defendants.

10. Para No. 10 is incorrect.

11. Legal

12. Para No. 12 is incorrect . The plaintiff has not affixed the proper court fee , hence the

suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed under order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The issues on which arguments are to be presented are as :

 Provide the legal status of all the parties .

 What is the validity of the contract of purchase of property?
 What is the status of agreement between the couple and Mrs. Ali ?
 What are the consequences of breach of contract?
 What is the status of Saba and her child?
 8

 How far the claim of Mrs. Ali valid?

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

a. Plaintiff claims of breach of contract is invalid. If contract perform according to

the terms and conditions is valid or invalid? Defendant claims that he wants to

maintain contract or legal relations to plaintiff and he is not breach the contract.

b. Plaintiff claims that Saba is under legal obligation to perform contract is invalid .

Parties to contract are always one party at the time of making contract or not?

Defendant claims that Saba is not under obligation to perform separately contract.

c. Saba,s and Hassan marriage broken down or they were separated is invalid.

Marriage broken means separated or divorce?Defendant claim that he divorced Saba.

WRITTEN PLEADINGS

 PROVIDE THE LEGAL STATUS OF ALL THE PARTIES.

In this case Mrs. Ali is a plaintiff (seller2) and Hassan and Saba (couple) are (buyer).3As

according to the case , Mrs .Ali willingness to sell property to the couple and the couple

despite of their financial issues wanted to purchase property on installments .This clearly

shows that both parties are competent 4 to perform contract with free consent 5
and also

2
Section 55 of Transfer of Property ACT 1882, 1995 CLC 813.1986 MLD 2915
3
.Section 55 of Transfer of Property Act 1882, PLD 1997 Lah 300, 1985 CLC 396.
4
Section 11 of Contract Act 1872, CLC 1877 ,1965 PLD 690 , I bn Taymiyyah al-Fatwa al- Kubra.Beirut. Dar –
Kutub al –Ilmiyyah, 1997. 1971 PLD 784, 1996 PLD 797 ,1994 PLD 127, 2001 PLD158, 2007
5
Section.14 of Contract Act 1872, CLC114, Review Vs. Ks. Sivaprasad Hassan al-Madkhalli 20dirasah al-Fiqh al –.
2011 PLD 44, 2011 PLD 44 SCP , Chitter Mal Narlan Das vs.Commissioner of Sales tax SCI 1970 Islami,p 3
 9

wanted to create legal relations6.

MRS. ALI BREACH THE CONTRACT AND DEMANDING THE MONEY

AS BEYOND THE CONTRACT

Mrs .Ali demanding the money as earlier . Mrs. Ali going against the contract which

is considered as breach of contract7. Hassan and Saba promised to pay full amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- after their financial difficulities and also agreed to pay Rs.25000/- monthly

until they have paid the full amount.8

Saba and Hassan paid Rs.3,50,000 of one year as according to their contract. Mrs.Ali

wishes to recover the full amount of the original contract which is against the contract.

After the seperatin , couples separated therefore, Saba is not bound to perform contract

because the couple mutually agreed to pay contract.9

 WHAT IS THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT OF

PURCHASE OF PROPERTY?

As the couple, Hassan and Saba promised to Mrs. Ali to pay full amount of Rs.10,00,000/-

after their financial difficulties and also agreed to pay Rs.25000/- per month until they

have paid the full amount .

TIME OR DATE WERE NOT MENTIONED FOR FULL PAYMENT

OF RS.10,00,000/-
6
2010 SCMR 334 , 2016 2015, 2013 YLR 1017
7
Section 73,74,75 of contract act 1872, 658, 2010 SCMR 829, PLD 2013 Sindh 290, 2009 SCMR276, 1911
AC301, (1916) 14 All. LJ 597. 2010 CLC 1843 , 2009 SCMR 276, 2012 CLD 66; 2013 CLD, 1872, 2010 CLC
1843. Sindh 290, 2014 CLC 466=2009 CLD 616, 138 IC 658.
8
Section 54 of transfer of property act 1882, 1986CLC2983, 1994CLC132, 1987CLC795, 1985CLC1112,
1985CLC1112, PLD1985SCP519, PLD Lah45, 1984SCMR94, 1986MLD1920, 1995CLC105.
9
Section 10 of contract act 1872.
 10

10
The couple did not mention the time or date of their full payment of amount

Rs.10.00,000 then they are not under obligation to perform contract on specific time

or date. They also not mention that they paid installment of Rs. 25000/-

continuously for three years for full payment of Rs.10,00,000 of what they

owe. The couple never says that they paid fully amount of Rs.10,00,000 in 2019.

Mrs. Ali demanding the full payment of Rs.10,00,000 against or beyond the contract

which considered as breach of contract11.

If the couple were not mentioned the time then they are not under obligation to perform

contract on specific time or date.

IF COUPLE PROMISED TO PAY INSTALLMENT IN 3 YEARS

THEY STILL NOT BOUND TO PAY FULL PAYMENT OF

RS.10,00,000/

Couple had promised 12 to pay installments in years as it was settled between the parties

that defendant will pay Rs.25000/- each month but Mrs .Ali had demanding full amount

before the 3years of agreement.(36 months multiply 25000 =900,000).

Couple had already paid Rs.35000/-. No wilfull default occurs as Mrs.Ali knew in financial

condition of the couple.

10
Section 55 of contract act 1872, 1982 CLC 1992, PLD1968 Kar. 154, PLD 1962 SCP 1, PLD 2008 Lah.42 , 190
IC 554, PLD 1963 Kar.786, (1877)2 AC 463, PLD 1965Kar.274.
11
.Section 73,74,75 of Contract Act 1872, , PLD 2012 Sindh 349, 133 IC 861 ,98 IC 118.
Section 37 of contract act 1872, APS-Star Industries LTD Vs.Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax officer 1987,
Maharashtra State Electricity Vs M/S Datar Switchgear 2013. (1831) 2B & Ad.882, 9 CP 213,214 , 106 IC 10, 93
IC 333;
12
Section 2(b) of contract act 1872, 1928 AC 518. 2002CLC 607.
 11

 WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH OF

CONTRACT?

As the consequences of breach of contract only occurred when Hassan and Saba breach

the contract. Couple had already paid Rs.350,000/- 13. Mrs .Ali knew the financial

14
condition of the couple as according to the contract but she demanding the full amount.

Mrs.Ali breach the conract.15 Mrs.Ali must pay the damages, compensation or also

16
Specific performance

 WHAT IS THE STATUS OF SABA AND HER CHILD?

As Saba is the party to contract .After separation Saba is not under obligation to perform

Contract because Saba and Hassan make contract with Mrs.Ali mutually consent17. They

did not Contract to Mrs.Ali seperatedly. Saba and Hassan are one party to contract. They

18
mutually or together give proposal to Mrs.Ali , so they are one party. Mrs.Ali accepted19 the

proposal from couple.

STATUS OF SABA CHILD

As Saba,s child is yet to be born.

13
Section2(d) of contract act 1872 ,2002SCMR1150, PLD1983Kar.340, 2002MLD550,1991CLC1591,1993
MLD1500, 2002MLD550, 1991CLC1591, 1993MLD1500 ,2002MLD1500 ,2002MLD550, 2001CLC820. Section
54 of transfer of property act 1882, 1986CLC2983, 1994CLC132, 1987CLC795, 1985CLC1112, 1985CLC1112,
PLD1985SCP519
14
Section 10 of contract act 1872, 2015SCP187, 2011YLR2825 ,2011 YLR2825 , 2007CLC1372,
2006SCMR721,PLD1974Lah.13, 2006 Kar.523 ,2001CLC104,1982SCMR453,1997Kar.62,
15
Section73,74,75 of contract act 1872.
16
Specific relief act 1877, Schwartz,aln, “the case for specific performance” (1979). Faculty scholarships series.
1118. http://dgitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1118., 45U.CHI. L.REV.351(1978)
17
Quran.4.29
18
Section 2(a) of contract act 1872,1990 SCMR 28
19
Section 27 of contract act 1872,PLD1965Kar.202.
 12

20
As being an unborn child, he has all the right of personal security consists in a

Personal legal and, his limbs, his body , uninterrupted enjoyment of his life his

health and his reputation .Life is the immediate gift of Allah , a right inherent by nature in

every individual and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an unborn is to able to stir

in the mother,s womb. An unborn is capable of having a legacy or surrender of a copyhold

of having esatate made to it .It may have a guardian assigned to it.

 HOW FAR THE CLAIM OF Mrs. ALI VALID?

Mrs.Ali can only claim Rs.25000/- per month21 not full amount .It was settled between the

Parties that couple will pay Rs. 25000/- each month.

Mrs.Ali claim fully amount is invalid because during contract time 22was not specified for

The full payment .Mrs. Ali just claim 25000/- per month.

Mrs.Ali claim that Saba is under obligation to pay full amount if she sperated from Hassan

is also invalid because Saba and Hassan are not seperatly party.They both give proposal23

together or mutually. If lives speratley or clash arose between them then Saba is under

obligation to pay amount.

20
PHD , Lect. At Glassgow Caledonian University, Prof. Al-Zarka define these rights as four categories, namely ,
the family name (Nasab); Inheritance; bequeathed will (Wassiyah) ; and a Waqf, Al-Zarqa ,Ahmad M, Al- am, 6 th
edn(1959) , Vol.2,PP, 743-747, Ibid, P,746,footnote 1, Zubaida Mustafa (Human rights and Pakistan in Dawn Oct
12, 2019). Dawn.com/news/54055/. In common law or in case of Tucker Vs. Charmichael Sons Inc.(1951). Supreme
court of Georgia. Hornsby Vs. Smith (133 ALR 684), Marrow Vs. Scott , Medlock Vs . Brown ,163, 4a.520
(136.S.E.551).
21
Section 2(d) of contract act 1872.
22
Section 55 of contract act 1872, PLD 1965Kar 274.
23
Section 2(d) of contract act 18872
 13

PRAYER

 It is prayed that suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with special cost, in the interest
Justice.
 Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper be also awarded
to the defendants.