UNIVERSITY LAW COLLEGE, QUETTA

Intra-Class Moot Court Competition

Team Members

Mohammad Walid
Ayaz Khan
Safiullah
Husneen Younus
Sohail Khan

In The Court Of XYZ

Memorial For Plaintiff

Table Of Contents
 The Memorial shall contain following contents;

 Citation
 Memorial on behalf of plaintiff
 Summary of Facts
 Issues
 Rules
 Arguments
 Prayer

Index Of Authorties:
Statues:
 Contract Act 1872
 Transfer Of Property Act 1882
 The Constitution Of XYZ
 CPC 1908 order

Books:
 Jurisprudence
 In the district court
of Quetta,
Civil suit for declaration of delivery of possession
cancellation, and permanent injunction.

Baqir Alvi
R/O Islamabad …………. plaintiff

VERSUS

1. Shami Hassan
2. Aslam Touqeer

R/ O Quetta …………. Defendants

 Facts:
1. Baqir Alvi, who lives in Islamabad, owning movable and immovable properties in all
parts of Pakistan.
2. To take care his properties in Quetta, he has appointed Ilyas Tauqeer, residing in Quetta.
3. In 2016 a property dealer, Khalid Siddique met Ilyas for purchase of immovable property
that was in ownership of Baqir and area of the property was 3000 sq.ft. He offered to
purchase per sq.ft costing 1000/- Rs. Ilyas made a call to Baqir at that time Baqir was
busy with his official works due to busy schedule he responded to Ilyas that you are
appointed to deal with all properties in Quetta do whatever you think fit and reasonable
and just inform me accordingly. Afterward Ilyas inquired market price from sources
which was 800/ per sq.ft. He decided to sell to Khalid Siddque.
4. In September Ilyas received an offer from a local estate builder named Shami Hassan for
the property of Baqir in the Quetta main city measuring (20,000sq ft) at the price of
1000/- per sq ft. At that day Ilyas contact Baqir but he was not available. Ilyas contacted
on his office landline. The secretary told him that Baqir is out of country however, Ilyas
told him the whole deal that the market price of the said property is not more than 700/
per sq ft and the deal is much beneficial in response the secretory on the next day
informed him that Baqir has consented to go with the deal.
5. So, Ilyas finalized the deal with shami on the following conditions.
(a) The Shami has to pay the whole amount whether in cash or by bank transaction till
October 15th, 2023 at the fixed price 1000/- per sq ft.
(b) On October 15th 2023 Ilyas shall transfer possession to the Shami Hassan.
6. The transfer of the ownership shall be made till November 15 th,2023 for which both of
them will go to Baqir Alvi. On October 15th ,2023 Shami Hassan paid the whole amount
in Bank Account of Baqir Alvi and Ilyas gave him possession of the property as per
decided.
7. Baqir Alvi reached Islamabad on October 25, 2023. Baqir shared the deal of his property
with Khadim Hussain, who is resident in Quetta, he was shocked and told Baqir that the
minimum value of the property shall be 2000/- per sq ft.
8. Baqir Alvi became very disappointed on such behavior of Ilyas with him. Therefore, he
decided to travel to Quetta to revoke the deal.
9. After reaching Quetta he investigated and came to know about the true story that,

Shami Hassan wanted to build a Shopping Mall on the property but he was unable to
purchase the property in market price. Therefore, when he came to know that Ilyas is the
ostensible dealer of the property of Baqir Alvi, he offered Ilyas Tauqeer that if he can fix
the deal on price of 1000/- per sq ft. Shami Hassan will give him contract of construction
work of the mall and as well as four shops in the mall on ground floor on which Ilyas
agreed therefore, he concealed the contents of this agreement from Baqir Alvi.
 10. After that Baqir Alvi told Shami Hassan on November 10,2023 that he wants to revoke
the deal and will not pass the ownership.
11. Shami Hassan tried to convince Baqir Alvi that he was aware of malafide motive of Ilyas
and his rights may not be infringed.
12. Baqir Alvi informed Shami Hassan via email that he believes that Shami Hassan was
unaware of the intentions of the Ilyas but deal is too hurtful for him therefore he cannot
go for the deal. He demanded the possession of the property from Shmai Hassan and
offered the payment of the consideration he paid under the deal.
13. In response Shami rejected the offer the Baqir Alvi finally filed a civil suit in the District
Court of Quetta for declaration of title and delivery of possession of property against
Shami Hassan and Ilyas Tauqeer.

Statement Of Charge:
The present case involves various legal issues and the
relevant laws would be apply to determine the result. In this situation, Contract Law
(1872) Property Law, Principles of Equity, Transfer of Ownership and Possession may be
relevant.

Arguments:
Honorable Court Baqir Alvi, the plaintiff, says that he is the rightful owner of
the property and appointed Ilyas Tauqeer as agent to manage his property in the Quetta. The first
issue revolves around the ownership rights of Mr. Shami Hassan. It is our allegation that his right
to the property did not vest, and Mr. Baqir Alvi's ownership remains. The initial agreement
between Mr. Ilyas Tauqeer and Mr. Shami Hassan was based on fraudulent market value which
he told 1000/ per sq. ft but the real market value was 2000/, by Mr. Ilyas Tauqeer for personal
gain.
Secondly, Ilyas Tauqeer Concealed malafidely the second agreement that was made between him and
Shami Hassan, “If Ilyas Tauqeer can lower down the price to 1000/ per sq. ft, Shami Hassan will give
them the contract of the construction work of the mall along with the ownership of four shops in the on
the ground floor on the same property”
Thirdly, it was duty of Ilyas Tauqeer to sale the property on the price which he thinks reasonable, but He
did not do so.
Moreover, an agent is bound to conduct the business of his principal according to the directions given by
the principal, or, in the absence of any such directions, according to the custom which prevails in doing
business of the same kind at the place where the agent conducts such business. When the agent acts
otherwise, if any loss be sustained, he must make it good to his principal, and, if any profit accrues, he
must account for it.
It is the duty of agent to show sincerity towards his principal and to provide beneficial output to him even
so he did not show sincerity in transaction.
The agent has breached the fiduciary duty or committed a wrongful act that resulted in huge loss of
amount of 2 crore to the principal.

1. Whether Mr. Shami’s right of ownership to the property vested in him and
Mr. Baqir’s right of ownership extinguished and whether Mr. Shami is entitled
for the transfer of the ownership of property in question?
Mr.Shami has no right of ownership in the property because the agent fraudulently
misrepresented to Baqir Alvi that market value of the property is approximately 700/ per sq. ft.
As per section 17 “"Fraud" means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a
contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his
agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:- (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true,
by one who does not believe it to be true; (2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge
or belief of the fact”1

So, the contract made between Ilyas Tauqeer and Shami Hassan is Voidable on the fact that Mr
Baqir (the principal) was guided wrongly in matter of price of property in market and it was the
duty of the defendant to disclose the facts to the real owner when it comes to his knowledge that
he is dealing with an ostensible owner.
Secondly, Shami Hassan is not entitled to ownership because Ilyas Tauqeer concealed the
agreement held between him and Shami hassan, “as if Ilyas can lower down the price to Rs 1000/
per sq.ft. Shami will give them the contract of construction work of the mall along with
ownership of four shops in the mall on ground floor” from Baqir Alvi as per section 55 of
Transfer Of Property Act 1882 (5) The buyer is bound:- (a) to disclose to the seller any fact as to
the nature or extent of the seller's interest in the property of which the buyer is aware but of
which he has reason to believe that the seller is not aware, and which materially increases the
value of such interest.2
Moreover, Shami Hassan is not entitled to ownership because the agent, in absence of principal, if any
loss be sustained, he must make it good to his principal.

Right of principal when agent deals, on his own account, in business of agency without
principal's consent 215. If an agent deals on his own account in the business of the agency,
without first obtaining the consent of his principal and acquainting him with all material
circumstances which have come to his own knowledge on the subject, the principal may
repudiate the transaction, if the case shows either that any material fact has been dishonestly
concealed from him by the agent, or that the dealings of the agent have been disadvantageous
to him.3
Here in the case the agent dishonestly concealed the beneficial agreement from his principal so,
the dealing of agent is disadvantageous to principal. As the agreement made between Ilyas and
1
Contract Act 1872 Section 17
2
Transfer Of Property Act 1882 section 55(5) a
3
Contact Act 1872 section 215
Shami Hassan is without consent of the Baqir Alvi so the contract can be revoked by the Baqir
Alvi.

2. Whether Mr. Baqir’s right is still intact in the property in question and
whether he is entitled to the delivery of the possession of the said property?
Yes, Baqir Alvi’s right is still intact in the property because his consent was obtained by fraud.
In addition he was also kept unaware from the agreement, of shops and contract of construction
work of the mall, held between Ilyas Tauqeer and Shami hassan which was clearly
disadvantageous to principal, Baqir Alvi due to this agreement the price of the property was
reduced from Rs 2000/ per sq.ft to Rs 1000/ per sq.ft. As the contract can be revoked by Baqir as
per section 215 of Contract Act and is entitled to the delivery of possession of the said property.

3. Whether the act of Mr. Ilyas Tauqeer was not in accordance with law and if so
what shall be his liabilities both towards Mr. Baqir Alvi and Mr. Shami
Hassan?
The act of Mr. Ilyas was not in accordance with law as per section 211 of Contract Act 1872 the
agent must make act in good to his principal and avoid the act which provides loss to his
principal. Finally, it is concluded that the right of Baqir shall be maintained in the property and if
any loss is sustained by the Shami Hassan in the term due to the contract, it is liability of Ilyas to
compensate him. The compensation can be claimed from Ilyas Tauqeer in another suit that will
be filed against Ilyas after the declaration of that suite.
Agent's duty in conducting principal's business
211. An agent is bound to conduct the business of his principal according to
the directions given by the principal, or, in the absence of any such directions,
according to the custom which prevails in doing business of the same kind at
the place where the agent conducts such business. When the agent acts
otherwise, if any loss be sustained, he must make it good to his principal, and,
if any profit accrues, he must account for it.4

Prayer:
With the most humble request it is stated that Baqir Alvi is the rightful owner of the property in
the question. Baqir Alvi argues that the appointed agent, Ilyas Tauqeer has made an additional
agreement with Shami Hassan and concealed the facts which caused fraud to Baqir Alvi and led
to the price below the market due to which a huge loss was sustained by the Baqir Alvi.

4
Contract Act section 211
Therefore ,the plaintiff prayes to grand him delivery of the possession of the immovable property
in question and recover his position with fair, justice and equity.