Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MUHAMMAD versus ABDUL RAUF KHAN

The specific performance of the failure to purchase Section 12 and 24 Stamp Act (II of 1899), Section 29 Contract Act (IX of 1872), Section 55 stamp paper, together with the claimant agreement, also together with the sale of their land. Receipt of the misconduct was not denied by the defendant The defendant claimed that since the plaintiff had not purchased the stamps before the due date, therefore, the defendant did not have to perform his part of the contract. It was not agreed nor was the trial court affirmed in the appeal. It was by the respondent that since the claimant did not buy the ticket papers before the due date, he was not ready and willing to buy the land. The sale agreement justified who would bear the costs of purchasing a ticket. Depending on the papers but Section 29 of the Stamp Act, 1899, it was held that if the contractor had not purchased the stamp paper, he would have been compelled to pay the seller's duty. It can be said that he was unable to perform his part of the contract and violated the terms and conditions of the contract in the scope of section 24 (b) of the Special Relief Act, 1871, for no apparent reason. The search for other evidence on the record cannot be sustained when other components indicate that they are able to pay part of the contract, have the required amount, and Wendy is ready and ready when the Sub Office visits. Could not have been due to not being. For this purpose, the Registrar had immediately escaped from the case, which proves that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the matter should be resolved. online advocate from Qambar lawyer