Find a Lawyer

IMAM DIN versus MERAJ DIN

Special Relief Act 1877 Section 12 Law Implementing the Sale Agreement for the Specific Performance of the Martyrs (10 of 1984), Arts 17 and 79 Suite Agreement, the plaintiff's evidence claimed that the plaintiffs' interest in the land was in advance The seller was in favor of the sale and that in the interest of the defendants the plaintiff had failed to execute the sale despite receiving the dues from the receipt and after his death the defendants who had legal heirs. Also avoided selling and instead sold the land in favor of another. The defendants of the individuals, through their predecessors, refused to implement the alleged sale agreement in interest. The plaintiffs were liable to prove the execution of the alleged sale agreement, but they failed to present the slightest evidence of the sale agreement and to recover the defamation and witness payment presented to the defendant by the defendant. Nothing was executed about the execution of the contract In order to prove the execution of the contract, the sales contract, the claimant who was the beneficiary of the contract, should have presented the author and the stamp seller, Such important witnesses were not presented to the trial court; in these circumstances, the claim was rightly dismissed. The plaintiff is not entitled. Any relief appellate court, after rejecting the trial decision, did not have the justification that the appellate court had passed the judicial verdict and decision, without keeping the evidence on record, was set aside. And the trial court granted the verdict and order. Restore and list of supreme court advocates from Taunsa sharif lawyer