Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus MST. SARDARAN BIBI

Sections 39, 42 and 54 of the Special Relief Act 1877 (10 of 1984), Arts 17 (2) and 79 of the suit for declaration of sale, permanent injunction and cancellation of the claim for the plaintiff were / are The question regarding the sale of the plot in the agreement was rejected by the fake and fake trial court, but on appeal, the appellate court set aside the trial court's decision and the plaintiff, who appeared as his own witness, agreed. Failed to discharge responsibility for the issue of falsehood which otherwise proved to be correct. The evidence of his minor testimony on the record had fully proved that the plaintiff had made the General Power of Attorney in favor of the brother of the defendant / brother on the same date when the agreement to sell the plot in this case was made. In favor of the defendant. The seller and the plaintiff admitted that there were thumbprints on the advice of their brother, in favor of which the General Power of Attorney had registered with the plaintiff's evidence. Defendant / seller and testifying witnesses were consistent, integrated, reasonable and confidently impressed Syed witnesses executing a valid sale agreement, recovering the amount of consideration by the plaintiff / vendor and handing over the plot to the plaintiff appeals court. I decided to do it. The trial court merely required the evidence to be substantiated by the testimony under Article79 of the Law of Evidence, on the basis that the preparation of only one witness was insufficient and at least two witnesses should be produced to prove the confession. The preparation of the two, in the slightest witness or circumstance in the circumstances, did not necessarily mean that the decision and the evidence by the appellate court were on record. top advocates from Sanghar lawyer