Find a Lawyer

GHULAM RASOOL versus MST. SIDDAN

Sections 12 and 27 (b) of Conan Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 117 and 120 Defendants to prove the plaintiff's complaint, the specific performance of the contract to sell to a sincere buyer for valuable consideration without notice. The plaintiff was, after the sale agreement was executed, he sold the suit to the third person, the trial court granted the plaintiff's favor, but the appellate court allowed the appeal and this legal record was available Evidence of the status quo showed that no notice was given to the third party regarding the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. At the time of taking possession of the suit property, the third party paid the total amount for consideration of the sale, which the appellate court rightly found that the third party was a good buyer for the plaintiff to consider without notice. That he sold the suit to a third party, that the burden of proof was transferred to the plaintiff, and that the appellate court had defrauded the plaintiff's claim because it was informed that the defendant If the property is about to be separated he should have at least sent a notice to the third party to let him know that he has purchased the contract What was According to the property and he should not purchase the property in dispute of payment but he failed to do so. The appellate court properly upheld the appeal and withheld the trial court's decision and order passed by the court and refused to interfere with the decision passed by the appellate. The court review was dismissed in the circumstances list of supreme court advocates from Tando Mohd Khan lawyer