Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MUSLIM versus SIRAJ DIN

Section 12 law to seize this evidence (10 of 1984), Article 59 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OI, R 10 (2) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 113 contract to sell suit The order was made but the same was reversed in the Court of Appeal. The sale was executed by one of the accused. The appellate court found that the suit land was in the joint ownership of the two brothers and the defendants and thus in any case Neither can dispose of a property when it is not legally allowed to sell it. That is why the contract in question was not enforceable in the law, the defendants successfully proved that the contract was canceled and the balance in the presence of witnesses was returned to the claimant by the recipient; Should not be disputed by, it does not need to be proven. Article 198459 of the Law Un testimony, Pla Pla Pla that that the plaintiff failed to establish the amount received was used during the litigation but at this time notices were not given to the defendants so no adverse action against the defendants. It cannot be argued that the written statement disclosed that a defendant had gifted the suit in favor of his daughter but it was never compulsory. The party suit, therefore, was bad for the non-participation of the parties. Plante had confirmed that the controversial sale agreement was to be implemented on June 30, 1985. The limitation period for filing a lawsuit for specific performance was 3 years, which was brought by the plaintiff 3 years later, meaning that the reason for the appellant's results would be banned on 249 1988. patent advocate from Moro lawyer