Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL

The sale agreement in the sale agreement in the suit for the declaration of Special Relief Act 1877 Section 42 property ownership did not show that no documentary evidence was presented to confirm that the alleged sale amount was not paid. That the payment was allegedly excessive, witnesses of the contract have clearly stated that the sale was never paid in his presence and he did not know that it was allegedly upon his receipt of the money. Thumb impression was made or another minor witness said that the alleged seller had marked his thumb on the documents and that he had other minor In the presence of the witnesses received a certain amount at the time of the execution of the receipt, which statement was contradicted by the other witness mentioned in the statement and stated that nothing was paid, received or received by the alleged seller. The change was not made but a copy of it was filed. His High Court was not admitted, after scrutiny and scrutiny of the records, it was found out that an agreement was reached to settle the land and the results of the courts below the trial court. Was reversed. The first appellate court did not consider the case in its original context, and the High Court correctly stated that the evidence of the plaintiff was completely misread and not read. Are not going Exceptionally, the Supreme Court refused to intervene in the situation criminal advocate from Kotla Pathan lawyer