Find a Lawyer

HAZRAT ALI KHAN versus MIR WALI KHAN

Specific Relief Act 1877 Sections 8 and 12 of the Inquiry (10 of 1984), Article L53 Specific Performance of the Contract The harmonious inquiries of the courts as stated in the preceding proceedings claimed that the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit land. Had claimed. The construction increased with the agreement that when the claimant pays the construction cost, the possession of the property will be handed over to the claimant agreement in which the claimant agreement was made between the parties and the claimant paid some money and that balance Ready to pay. The money but the defendant refused to return the possession, the defendant's argument was that the plaintiff had given the question in the name of Sabila Allah (in the name of Allah) and that the defendant had taken a construction court decision and the trial decision. The case was approved by the court. The plaintiff was supervised by the appellate court on behalf of the plaintiff, claiming legal action filed in another court before the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff gave him the land as feebil Allah. To confirm that there was no positive effort from him and to no avail. Defendants cannot be allowed to take advantage of the statement. In the case of the plaintiff in another court where the plaintiff stated, the courts below did not err in declaring the case and while dismissing the appeal, the High Court intervened in the conclusions of fact by the lower courts. Refused to do. Under the circumstances advocate for immigration from Mir Ali lawyer