Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF

In order to prove the cancellation of the Transaction Ounce, registered for sale under Articles 39 and 42 of Laws (10 of 1984), Arts 17 and 79 suits, the plaintiff sought to cancel the sale agreement on the basis that it was presented The interest was an illiterate, the abusive woman refused the free advice and the dispute was a result of the fraudulent sale case. Under Arts 17, at least two witnesses were required to prove the transaction. The defendant of Canaan's testimony, 79, 1984, presented only a minor witness who was unaware of the details and confessed that the plaintiff was not in the interest of the plaintiff with anyone when the stripe writer Author of the sale process by Predictor. In the interest of the plaintiff was an uneducated bridegroom / lady of the village and no one of her confidence fell on the defendant with heavy assault. To prove the deal in which they could not refuse, the registration of the truth relating to the registered sale deed was only to the extent of its registration and was not executed and the copy of the copy of the sale receipt agreement was written. The statement was attached but the defendants did not present these documents. The absence of these documents in the evidence went a long way in showing the openness of the claim and the defendants' stand in the evidence. The verdict and judgment passed were put aside and the trial court was reinstated \ r \ n \ r \ n list of supreme court advocates from Gujrat lawyer