MUHAMMAD USMAN versus GHULAM HAIDER
The plaintiffs' contention that the performance of section 42 of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), section 573 registration act (XVI of 1908), section 17 civil procedure code (VV 1908), section 115 suit statement was that they Had paid the whole amount. Considering that they had been given possession of the land on which they had purchased the property and had been living in it, the trial court has ruled in the case since 1976, but the appellate court has decided to sell Set aside the judgment and order of the trial court holding the agreement, which was an unregistered contract. , No title was given to the plaintiffs, in view of the fact that the plaintiffs had, under section 53 of the Property Transfer Property Act, 1882, a part of this agreement Their occupation was protected in the performance. The appellate order was amended to the extent that the plaintiff's right to retain possession of the suit land was protected. That they would not be excluded from suit land without the operation of law
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
property advocates from Sehwan lawyer
