Find a Lawyer

AMIRULLAH KHAN versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM

Sections 8 and 53A Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Sections 49 and 60 of the Transfer Property Act (IV of 1882), Section 454 Law on Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 17 (2) (a) and 79 suits The claimant's claim for possession was based on the registered sale deed, which was presented in evidence, but did not prove to be fraudulent and fraudulent in claiming the property on the basis of the unregistered sale deed executed by the original owner. The defendant did not confirm his testimony in evidence or in the affirmative. Neither the original owner's signature was present on the payment made by the defendant nor did the testimony confirm that the plaintiff did not present any substantiated document against the plaintiff, which was registered by the registered sale deed trial court and Appeal was overlooked by the court. The defendant was ordered to sue for failing to prove possession of the property for the purpose of carrying out any contract by the original owner on behalf of the defendant. Seeking to take advantage of Section 533 of the Transfer Property Act, 1882, the High Court dismisses the second appeal filed by the plaintiff. law firms from Jampur lawyer