Find a Lawyer

JAINA versus ZOHRA BIBI

The Special Relief Act 1877 Section 42 suit claimed for respondents to the declaration on the basis of oral sale that they had purchased the land from the foregoing foreclosure through oral sale on 12-12 1965 and confirmed the change. On which the respondents filed a case for declaration. The basis of the oral sale, which was rejected by the trial court, but the appellate court reversed the findings in the appeal, with no evidence on record as to where and when the issue was settled or paid or the sale. The only evidence to prove that the contract was made is that the mutant was a person who identified the seller (the appellant's predecessor) Syed did not personally know the witness shopkeeper and identified him at the request of the respondent. And no payment was made in the presence of this witness, though Patwari had stated in his evidence that neither the seller nor him There was no knowledge, nor was he asked to enter the mutation, neither a neighbor nor an independent relative of the seller was offered to prove that the appellate court's sales decision was based on legal or admissible evidence. Was based on the law and thus could not remain in the law and was set aside by the High Court. online advocate from Dhatmal lawyer