For the specific performance of the Special Relief Act 1877 Section 12 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), S: 100 suit agreement, the claimant claimed that the sale agreement was between him and the original owner in relation to the suit property and that The money was paid to the trader as a lease and the seller had taken up the transfer of the property to the claimant and also claimed that after the death of the original owner, in his written statement he had written to the deceased seller. The legal heritage was paid out of which the alleged agreement was denied. The plaintiff alleged that the sale and receipt of any money and that the sale agreement was a fake and fabricated document. Defendants also oppose the case on the basis of the record, based on the evidence of the record, the two courts simultaneously concluded that the alleged sale agreement was a forgery. The plaintiff was arraigned by the tenant, only to retain his possession of the land, and to quash the case without specifying the extraordinary delay filed by the plaintiff for seventeen years from the alleged execution of the contract of sale. Subsequent disputes are bound to reject the concurrent conclusions of the courts on the basis of the record, on the basis of the record of any misrepresentation or non-reading of evidence by the courts. The second appeal could not be interfered with the High Court dismissing the appeal by the plaintiff / appellant taking serious notes of fraud and forgery.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
