Find a Lawyer

JAMIL AKHTAR versus LAS BABA

In sections 12 and 27 of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), sections 41 of the Registration Act (XVI of 1908), sections 18 and 49, the vendor contracted with the claimant for the specific performance of the property sale agreement. And executed the registered power as well. In his favor, the lawyer authorized the seller to sell the land on the seller's behalf to the plaintiff's claimant, who was later contested by the shopkeepers and also claimed to have been Favoring the transfer and having done both without any justification for the rights of the claimant, hanged on the same date, the shopkeeper thereafter, practicing most carefully, could investigate the property of the registration office in the revenue record. Or was it still in the name of the seller's registered work, if checked, then never provided a chance. Sustaining shopkeepers was likewise a common general power of attorney in favor of the plaintiff. eement to sale, which was never registered if the parties processed only one document and all contents of both documents were mentioned in the same document, which was also registered, then alerted about the rights of subsequent vendors. There was every opportunity to be there. The plaintiff's agent registered power of attorney was silent that the principal had allowed the agent to transfer the property to his own name, in spite of the constant caution in such circumstances, the existence of a contract for sale could not be known. Nor could he know. ve between the original seller and the plaintiff, thus, without consideration of section 27 of the Special Relief Act, 1877 famous supreme court advocate from Skardu lawyer