Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SADIQ versus ABDUL GHAFOOR

The plaintiff claimed that her father owned his property for the specific work of the Special Relief Act 1877 Section 12, 27 (b) and 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), section 115 = sale agreement and permanent injunction Half of the seller agreed to sell it in favor of the sale, while the defendant alleged that the plaintiff's vendor / father had later disposed of the property in favor of him through a registered sale deed. The lawsuit was filed for a permanent injunction to restrain, which sued for specific contractual performance. Trial court interfered in seizing the suit property and both suits were dismissed and the judgment filed for the specific performance of the contract was pronounced while the respondent dismissed the suit for a permanent injunction, but the appellate court Dismissed the case on specific performance charges and was dismissed on a permanent injunction. Respondents were the clear buyer of the property for holding value and are also likely relieved that the article was not claimed by the claimant in its claimant for the specific performance of the contract. Under the Special Relief Act, Section 27 (b) of the Validity Trial Court did not make any case on the question of absence of notice or wrongful purchase by the defendant. Nor were the parties involved in this part of the dispute; the appellate court, in the circumstances, could not decide the question for the first time to present evidence, to object to the parties retaining the case for specific performance of the contract. , This property was not claimed, online advocate from Madinah lawyer