Find a Lawyer

HAKEEM ABDUL AZIZ KHAN versus DOST MUHAMMAD

Section 12 of the Transfer of Property Act (I82 of I82), the specific performance of the Section 41 contract, was a claim for sale that the plaintiff had made an agreement under which he agreed to sell the suit land for consideration. And after receiving the counterfeit money the plaintiff was given possession of the suit land and it was promised that he would execute the sale after receiving the balance amount, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had fulfilled his promise. Failure to do so, he had to file a lawsuit for the contractor's specific performance. The execution of the sale agreement, the receipt of interest money and the plaintiff's refusal to hand over the suit land was denied by another person who claimed that he was a sincere purchaser of the suit land by the defendant. Was heard, but the verdict was passed by and through. Trial App Appellate Court set aside the court in its appeal stating that the existence of a sale agreement was not proved by the plaintiff. In the absence of any explanation from the plaintiff in this regard, the appellate court correctly concluded that no oral or written agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. The claimant has failed to prove any sale agreement in his favor. The plaintiff's claim that the sale of the suit land to the other person by the plaintiff was invalid because the other person was aware of the sale agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, so it was overturned because the plaintiff was in favor of it. Could not prove the execution of the sale agreement. Admitted that at the time of filing the case, the other top advocates from Phoolnagar (Bhai Pheru) lawyer