Find a Lawyer

SYED RAFAQAT ALI versus BASHIR AHMAD

Sections 12 and 21 (c) of the Contract Act (IX of 1872), the section 29 suit for the specific performance of the contract to sell the plaintiffs' claim, were that the underlying contract was a contract to sell, while the defendants requested that it be There was no contract to sell, but just another contract when the defendants decided to sell their land within a period of three months, an unconditional and absolute pledge for any of the defendants in the contract to sell their land. The contract was not put into effect when the defendant decided to sell the land within three months from the date of the agreement. Reward and in this case the plaintiff was obligated to sell the house, the owners of the three defendants suit land, but was given an execution of the three. Neither the contract nor the two others stated that the agreement was executed nor that a third person was given the option to sell their property, nor any legitimate right, in the circumstances, to the plaintiffs. The said appellate court, while approving the decision of the appellate court, did not keep the rest of the appellate court in mind nor did the provisions of section 29 of the Contract Act 1872 and the Special Relief Act 1877 relate to the wording of the contract. C) was also not appreciated. In the circumstances, the question was a false contract and did not apply the relevant law to the facts on record and the High Court granted the appellate court-approved jurisdiction under its jurisdiction to review it. Was set aside and the trial court was restored. law firms from Dargai lawyer