QASIM ALI versus KHADIM HUSSAIN THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
Section 36 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), for the specific performance of the contract of sale to the claimant, claimed that because the defendant had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract and therefore Sold the property in favor of another person, so he brought it. The plaintiff, in his written statement, agreed to the sale agreement in favor of the plaintiff in his written statement as to the defendant's claim to the defendant and to defer the sale in his favor, and also requested that someone else's rights I was not sold. The plaintiff, through his modification, was, according to him, the victim of fraud and misrepresentation, however, in his written statement, he opposed that the agreement was finalized in favor of the plaintiff after the cancellation of the alleged change. Ready to give, for which they emphasized. Take appropriate legal action, but did not, other defendants, in their written statement, refuse to execute the contract with the first plaintiff to sell to the plaintiff and claim that the agreement was ex-plaintiff and also the plaintiff and the first There is a dissociation between the defendants. Both lower courts allowed the plaintiff's case and the second returned the findings on the issue of justification for the purchase of facts against the accused. The two courts, in fact, relied primarily on the first defendant's admission of the execution of the sale agreement, but the admission of the joint defendant was not binding on the second, which made the rule more rigorous on the present case. Will apply. , Because the other defendant had already purchased the suit property from the defendant and on behalf of her
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
