Find a Lawyer

MST. NASEEM AKHTAR versus MUHAMMAD TARIQ NAVEED

Specific Relief Act 1877 Section 12 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Specific Performance of Contract for Sale of Relief Under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, Claimant's Procedure Claims to Implement Contract That the defendant's father is the owner. The suit property was agreed to be sold for Rs. 500,000, of which Rs. 450,000 was received by the property as arrears and the sale agreement was executed by the owner in favor of the claimant. I was. She was running a school in the property, after the owner's death, the defendant refused to comply with the sale agreement in favor of the plaintiff because the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the contract because the plaintiff and her witnesses were on the side. There were contradictions in positions. No explanation was given on the record that when 90% of the price was paid when the formal sales document was processed and the entry was stopped, all the money failed to prove on the plaintiff's record. That the deceased did not sell the house, nor was there any request or statement in the witness box about how the process was initiated and the property was presented for sale by the plaintiff's witnesses in the witness box Unnatural and unconvincing, the trial court approved the suit for special performance and relief. It was declared arbitrary and not merely because it was permissible to do so because by applying this law, wisdom was a fundamental principle of the rule of probability as well as of the law of evidence. The Court is not satisfied property advocates from Toru lawyer