Find a Lawyer

MST. NAZIRAN BIBI versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR

Article 22 Legislative evidence (10 of 1984), the specific performance of the contract to sell Articles 17 and 79, proof of the testimony of witnesses, the competent thumb impression on the seller's agreement, were not relied upon by the plaintiff, nor The defendant denied that the plaintiff had rented the plaintiff and that the thumb impressions on the document were affixed to the mark of the rental receipt. The defendant submitted that the defendant did not make any request to contest his confession. The appellate court did not note the fact that the thumbprints appearing on the contract did not mention any marginal testimony in the original agreement, which was a serious and unknown error by the plaintiff following the agreement. Even the minor witnesses were not able to confirm that they were capable of testifying. The defendant did not know that the defendant's case was that he was paid rent from time to time and that the impression of the indicator was obtained as a sign of receipt of his T rent. Why the sale of this property by the defendant should have been postponed for a long time, and it is strange that there was no later date in the contract by which the balance amount was to be paid by the claimant like this. Extraordinary circumstances disproved the fact of the case established by the plaintiff, and it was sufficient that the specific filed by the plaintiff Creating a case for performance-based inequality was sufficient to show that the agreement to sell the plaintiff arbitrary property advocate from Jaja Abasian lawyer