Find a Lawyer

BOOTA versus GHULAM HAIDER

The Power of Attorney Act 1882 Section 2 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), the Section 115 registered Power of Attorney, was alleged to be the result of fraud. The executive / plaintiff asserted that although the document was executed, he did not give the lawyer the power to own the property for which he was executed. The share was mortgaged to his brother and the rest of the money was sold to his other brother, both transactions were considered, the executor / slyleaf challenged the immovableness of the land through an attorney's trial court. At the time of the documentary proceedings when the trial was committed, when the appellate court overturned the trial court's decision and the trial was justified, the plaintiff's witnesses had no direct knowledge nor They were there. The same was read by an officer reading his official duty power-off performance and executing a solicitor in favor of the respondents / defendants rightly executing the mortgage document and selling it. The proceedings were proved by direct evidence of the minor witnesses and the consideration was paid in which the judgment of the trial court was pronounced. The first hand was based on evidence, while the lower appellate court was presented on the basis of speculation of witnesses who did not appear in the confession at the time of the controversial transaction, set aside by the lower appellate court's decision. Was gone and the trial court restored immigration advocate from Mithi lawyer