Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HASSAN QURESHI AND OTHERS versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF THROUGH L.RS.

Plaintiff's determination of redemption, in the nature of section (c) c "sale" or gage mortgage transactions, affirmed that the suit property was mortgaged in favor of the defendant through the registration process dated 10 198 1981. I was taken into custody but without informing the plaintiff to the defendant, the suit was transferred to another person pursuant to the Agreement dated 12 198 1986, the defendants denying the mortgage, claiming that the matter was sold at the date of sale. Is within the terms of the repurchase by the claimant for a period of 5 years from the date and the plaintiff took the advantage to exploit it. Rukht's transaction became an absolute and final plaintiff, besides documentary evidence, proving his case by incorporating minor evidence of the document in the dispute, the defendant presented no evidence other than the statement of the person from whom the property was transferred. Depending on the reason that he was neither party to the transaction and execution of the questioned documents nor in his presence had there been an unlawful transaction, in the circumstances the statement of transfer of property, more than any evidence of hearing. Was not given by the defendant in self-examination in support of his defense or in presenting any oral / documentary evidence. That led to the confession of facts. A registered process presented by the plaintiff and the transfer reflects that the defendant's debt was owed by the plaintiff's son, however the deferred document discloses that the plaintiff's contentious property was owned by the defendant. Even the mortgage for the thing was not kept. Did not transfer the legal title to the transfer as required under section 454 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 best advocate from Kurram lawyer