Find a Lawyer

KHALID MAHMOOD versus NAJIB KHAN

For advance purchase of Articles 6, 14 and 20 of the Transfer of Property Act (IV 1882), Section 552 Civil Procedure Code (VV 1908), 0 1, ROO suit, Former Purchase Act of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Pending the execution of the party's request, the petitioner moved a petition for enforcement of it in the defendant's line alleging that he purchased the land in dispute with the original seller through a sale agreement. Is. The applicant was not required party in view of the fact that the alleged sale proceedings were first carried out during the trial by the vendor and were influenced by the principle of Les Pendens, the trial. The verdict was up to the High Court. The first seller's transfer of the favor granted to the applicants was terminated approximately seven years after the earlier deadline for filing a pre-application bail against Vendor Apple. The principle of lease pendency envisaged under Section 52 of the Property Act, 1882 affected the first buyer to the ICNT / alleged buyer; the applicant can only resist if the land in dispute is within the limits set by it. Is transferred over a period of time. Regarding filing a pre-emption lawsuit against a first-seller applicant, it cannot be said that he has stepped into the shoes of the first seller and that he or she is eligible to receive any defense that will apply to the first seller's applicant. There was no necessary party available and he should not have acted in such suit famous supreme court advocate from Depal Pur lawyer