Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN versus MUHAMMAD ASHIQ

After conducting a proper and proper examination of the evidence, both the courts found that the deceased owner of the suit land, upon receipt of the money, agreed to sell for the plaintiffs under the specific performance of the section 12 contract for sale. What was said and done was legally acknowledged by the legal heirs of the deceased, the legal heirs of the victims were sincerely received from the plaintiffs, and after the award of the guardianship certificate, the necessary sale of the defendants Demands some judicial decision on the proceedings and legal heirs of the Board of Revenue Or. The trial court upheld the decision to come into existence and sell the contracts in favor of the plaintiffs, but refused to pass a specific performance order in favor of the plaintiffs. Subsequent vendors were better buyers without notice of prior sales agreement. Subsequent vendors did not set a due date in favor of the plaintiffs, because the plaintiffs refused to perform the sale date, the plaintiff Their rights and time were upheld, and the appellate court was then found fit to file a lawsuit to prevent a safe change. At the time of the Appellate Court on the proper and appropriate analysis of the evidence, it was rightly found that the subsequent shopkeepers knew of the contract in favor of the plaintiffs, especially as they had any strong interest in acquiring the suit land. And the specific evidence was not followed by their subsequent purchase of the corrupt. Without a notice of sale agreement in favor of the plaintiffs, the question of fact was given by the appellate court as appropriate for the evidence below. famous supreme court advocate from Thana Bula Khan lawyer