The plaintiff's claim for declaration of plaintiff's claim was that the defendant allegedly committed the sale to give the title to the suit land and that it was fraudulent and was never signed by the defendant's defense. That he had said he had purchased the suit land through a sale agreement. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for consideration at a total consideration of Rs. 80,000; in fact, it was executed by the appellate court of the plaintiff. The testimony of the three witnesses presented in the evidence of his claim was not credible and sufficient evidence was not provided to identify the plaintiff because the person who performed the sale in question even had a fingerprint express. Also objected to the impression of two thumbs appearing in the sales process on a sample paper sent to the finger print bureau for comparison. Does not match the impression of the thumb being done. , After considering the evidence, it was justified that the plaintiff did not conduct the sale of the plaintiff in question and the defendant was unable to sue the existence of any of the grounds stated in W. Section 100, CPC. Can interfere with arbitrary decree, other appeal dismissed \ r \ n \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
