Find a Lawyer

ALAM KHAN versus SHAH NAWAZ

Section 12 Suit Property Sales Requirements for Specific Performance of the Contract Equipped Pendant, Applicable Principles Alternative Relief Trial Court dismissed the case but ordered the appellate court to recover the sale price. Done. There was no contradiction between the execution of the sale agreement and the statements of its witnesses, so the stamp seller's inspection was not necessary as its production would be necessary if the stamp papers were purchased from a location other than the plaintiff. Refused to execute on the sale agreement but did not later terminate the transfer of the suit land in favor of the buyers. The defendants sold the land and then refused. And that was influenced by the theory of Lease Landance. Buyers can no longer be claimed to be empowered because there were no requirements to sell the contract was concluded and the sale of the suit property would not be in favor of the buyer as a result. Important prayer also had to be kept in mind that the alternative appeal court erroneously ignored the central relief and focused on the alternative relief suit. The plaintiff was declared subject to payment on the outstanding sale within thirty days

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015

• Mst. ASIA KHATOON v. KHAN SHAREEN 2015 YLR 435
• GUL BAD SHAH v. FAZAL ELAHI 2015 MLD 441
• AMIR NAWAZ KHAN v. WALI JAN 2015 CLC 441
• GHULAB KHAN v. State 2015 PCrLJ 453
• COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE ZONE-II, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, PESHAWAR v. ROOH-UL-AMIN, UNIVERSITY BOOK AGENCY, BANK ROAD, MARDAN 2015 PTD 472
• NISAR AHMAD v. State 2015 PCrLJ 478
• SHAH MIRAN v. M. TAUFIQ KHAN 2015 MLD 480
• HUSSAIN MUHAMMAD v. VICE-CHANCELLOR, ISLAMIA COLLEGE, PESHAWAR 2015 CLC 500

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2015 →

property advocate from Domeli lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes