Find a Lawyer

GHULAM SHABBIR versus SIKANDAR SHAH

Special Relief Act 1877 Section 42 Transfer of Property Act (I82 of I82), Section 54 suit claims the sale of land by a blind man The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff, a blind person, disputed the plaintiff's predecessor. I sold the land and the Revenue Authority claimant, who was a careless blind man, denied the sale of the land by confirming the change and also refused to receive the sale consideration for the land where the sale was made. Was claimed to have an impact. By mutation and saying that the mutation was challenged, if a person had to claim to benefit from the sale then he had to prove the transaction through independent evidence as the mutation itself was not blind to the defendant in any of the titles. It was necessary for the plaintiffs to ensure that they were affiliated with the plaintiff. And they also had some relatives who could understand the transaction or in whose presence anyone could ensure the sale of the transaction by a blind person to prove the legal and legitimate transaction. Therefore, a stronger contract would require more robust evidence than a person capable of entering into any contract independently when such evidence would disappear. It was not claimed that he was accompanied by any of his relatives with whom he resided. It was not claimed that he provided any receipt or was not prepared in the acknowledgment of the alleged payment of huge sums of sale, by any independent evidence, but it was based on the statement of the witness who was able Did not trust because it has been said top advocates from Kala Bagh lawyer