Find a Lawyer

BABU IRSHAD AHMED versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN

Section 16 law deals with the sale of ounces to prove the evidence (10 of 1984), art 33, 72 and 129 (g) of an illiterate old man. Withholding of evidence An illegal settlement dispute was allegedly executed by the plaintiff, who was approximately 100 years old. There was an illiterate person who claimed that the contract was entered into by the defendant in the presence of the defendant's son, when the money received by the defendant was deposited in the bank's account in the name of the defendant. Was opened on the same day. Identification of the plaintiff's account in which the deposit was made was inadmissible and the amount was not withdrawn by the plaintiff plaintiff, in whose presence the contract was executed, was not presented to the court, which is why He was dismissed by the trial court. That the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the contract the right or interest in the immovable property was to the person under whose document the claim of right or interest was to establish with the plaintiff that the contract was a defendant. Aliya was widely understood and if she was illiterate, it was really her free and intelligent move. The plaintiff failed to prove that the agreement was read to him; the trial court correctly concluded that the sale was between the plaintiff and the defendant in violation of section 16 of the Contract Act, 1872. The contract was executed. At trial, the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had executed a contract to sell him freely because the plaintiff had withheld his best evidence, in the present case. patent advocate from Mubarik Pur lawyer