Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YAR versus MEHMOOD

Sections 12 and 27 (b) for the specific performance of the sale of the contract claimed that the suit plaintiff claimed that the owner of the suit land had sold it after receiving the money as base amount, but because the suit was mortgaged with the land bank Was placed, so the sale could not be processed. And the same land was to be recovered and the land was redeemed and the claimant was willing to pay the rest, but the suit landowner refused to complete the sale and replaced the alien suit land with another person. Sold in favor of who sold more. The plaintiff in his claimant for the specific performance of the contract with another person claimed that the mutation in the sale should be separated in favor of the two other persons who were defendants in the case because it The case was already sold for land. The court, in its judgment, observed that the sale agreement had been proved in favor of the claimant, but the subsequent vendors / defendants had no knowledge of the next sale agreement. The trial court between the plaintiff and the owner of the suit land later declared the subsequent shopkeepers / defendants a mini-suit, and the plaintiff declared the suit a mini-suit and issued a decree in lieu of the money which the plaintiff subsequently filed against the seller. The outstanding amount and suit was paid to the landowner by the trial court, the appellate court reversed the trial court's finding of accuracy. The shopkeepers thereafter stated that they had no knowledge of the previous agreement that they had reached between the claimant and the landowner, but the plaintiff did not appear to refuse. Prove it best advocate from FR Tank / DI Khan lawyer