KARAMAT ULLAH versus ASMAT ULLAH
The suit and the appellate suit property for the specific performance of the contracts to sell the section 12 suit were actually owned by the plaintiff's father, before the parsonage of the agreement revealed that it was neither an agreement on its terms nor in any document The property owner has it. There was no special significance for such an agreement to be executed or validated so that any particular performance of the contract selling contract could be implemented. The subsequent contract was an oral transaction and was not proved by presenting its witnesses, after which the plaintiff has subsequently announced and terminated the sale agreement. Dismissal and appeal also failed ??? Due to the action claimed by the plaintiff, the fraud was gross and the prayer of relief was unfounded.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
immigration advocates from Bhakkar lawyer
