Sections 12 and 42 of the Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 17 Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Section 17 switch for sale and contract sale are in addition to the specific performance of the contract, which is claimed. ? The defendant's signature and the evidence presented by the plaintiff on the basis of which the transfer of the plot was sought, were not specifically disputed by the defendant on the basis that He did not deny the plaintiff in his written statement. The plaintiff was confined to the confession of the documents, however, while at the stage of the evidence different attempts were made to improve his case by disagreeing with his signature, the plaintiff did not specifically plead that the sale agreement or any other. The document is intended to be signed. He was not signed by him on the Plaintiff for change of his signature only to dispute the authenticity of the sale process so as to prove that he did not sign the act. Did not bring any material to the record to prove that the original file of the plot in the plaintiff was stolen by the claimant. The defendant's contention was that the contents of the agreement did not appear to be an agreement. Under the strategy it was stated that the agreement stated that the sale had been fully considered, therefore, it had to be registered under Section 17, Reg. Under the Ration Act, 1908, it should have been properly sealed and registered. Mentioning the fact of paying all sales consideration in a deal would not result in a sales deadline.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
