Find a Lawyer

DUR MUHAMMAD versus ABDUL RAZZAQ

Sections 12, 42 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), section 588 (c) suit for specific performance of the contract, suit and permanent injunction were dismissed by the plaintiff that the defendant sued for a period of one month. Had mortgaged the land. It has possession against this amount - with the condition that if the mortgage is not paid in a month's time, the suit will be sold to the plaintiff, the mortgage in the absence of payment within a fixed period. , The plaintiff claimed to have acquired the suit land under the agreement and sought a decree to declare that he was the owner of the suit property pursuant to the mortgage agreement that changed the plaintiff's contract of sale. And had sought a permanent injunction and prayed for a specific order. The performance of the contract was simultaneously rejected by the trial court and the appellate court. There was nothing available in the advance between the parties, nor was there evidence that the initial intention was to sell the suit land. Both courts were not authorized to hold mortgage documents as a down-sell agreement or sale agreement. , Set aside and the case dismissed. Defendant may release suit land according to law. solicitors from Kotri lawyer