Find a Lawyer

MATLOOB HUSSAIN versus KARAMAT HUSSAIN

In the claimant's contention that the claimant / plot disputed the seller in claiming section 42 of the Special Relief Act 1877, it was claimed that the plot which was allotted to the defendant was purchased by him and sold. After receiving the price, the defendant received his receipt in his favor. In his counterclaim, the appellant contended that the alleged receipt was fraudulent and fraudulent and denied the sale of the plot in favor of the plaintiff in the trial of the plaintiff and claimed that the plaintiff / defendant claimed that the plaintiff. Failed to prove it. In favor of this, the sale of the plot and the sale price were proved to be fake in an appellate court below and the High Court upheld the trial court's decision that the original documents of the plot were in the dispute. Either the evidence provided little evidence or the evidence did not prove the admissibility of the receipt through any other evidence. Given that both the plaintiffs and the minor witnesses were abroad at the time of his recovery, the disputed receipt proved to be fraudulent and fraudulent, the reasons included by the Appellate Court and the High Court were attributable to any legal power to which the Supreme Court ruled. Was set aside and restored the appellate court and high court orders and the trial court's decision and order below online advocate from Bannu lawyer