Find a Lawyer

NORAUZ KHAN versus SHAH JEHAN

Article 117 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), sections 42 and 55 of the suit, for the declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property, he had purchased in advance of the defendant's interest on the basis of the sale agreement. Was. And that the subsequent property-related transactions were illegal, fraudulent and ineffective, the defendant's rights also prayed for a permanent injunction, preventing the plaintiff from interfering with the peaceful occupation of the property. In the interest of the defendants the suit was the original owner of the property and the plaintiff was included as the tenant under which the claimant claimed that he had purchased the matter on the basis of the seller's agreement but his claim Nothing was brought to the record to prove this and the witnesses presented agreed completely on the material details of the case. The plaintiff had not tried to prove the facts of the purchase but failed to exclude the same person who claimed / accused the particular facts and the court wanted him to believe the existence of that fact. To prove that the plaintiff had. The plaintiff's suit for review by the High Court failed to find merit deprived. \ r \ n \ r \ n lawer from fb area from Thana Bula Khan lawyer