Find a Lawyer

NOOR MUHAMMAD ALIAS KALA versus BARKAT ALI

Section 12 law claims those asserted for the specific performance of the evidence (10 of 1984), arts 17 (2) (a) and 79 suit sales agreement that the foregoing in the interest of the proprietors entered into an agreement with them. Had agreed to sell the land under the suit. The sale for a total consideration of Rs 50,000, of which Rs 40,000 was paid to him and Rs 10,000 to be paid upon finalization of the sale, but he failed to do so, the appellants. Denied the applicant's claim. The sale agreement was a forgery, and they, in their interest, never received any consideration from the respondents, and because the alleged transaction was a forgery, the trial court rejected the case, but the appellate court rejected the trial court. And said that the sale agreement was proved. It was legitimately executed and did not even say what the sale price was and that if the defendants had paid in the presence of the plaintiff in the interest of the plaintiff it was said that Arts 17 (2) According to the provisions of 79 and 79, the process of sale was not confirmed by two witnesses. The Canaan evidence, the 1984 cell contract which was confirmed by only one witness, was perfectly enforceable and the appellate court erroneously enforced and the appellate court's order was revoked, and the trial court's men retained. Was filed and the defendants filed a lawsuit. Was deleted us immigration advocates from Shedani sharif lawyer