Find a Lawyer

SARDAR RAZA MUHAMMAD KHAN versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN

Section 12 Law Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 17 (2) (a) and 79 suits the evidence of the specific performance of the sale contract, the prosecution examined the author of the sale agreement and a minor witness who testified. That none of them was written. The plaintiff was legally bound to prove a sale agreement by examining two minor witnesses, whose stamp paper shows that it was originally sold for an affidavit, which was later sold with different contracts. Was changed for the purpose of the agreement. Signatures Not to be signed by the stamp vendor on such replacement clause

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2013

• MUHAMMAD SADHEER v. DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2013 PLC(CS) 1205
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ v. KALA KHAN 2013 CLC 1246
• Kh. ABDUL HAMID v. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary 2013 PLC(CS) 1264
• KHALID MAHMOOD v. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary 2013 PLC(CS) 1286
• Mir AQEEL-UL-ISLAM v. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD, MIRPUR 2013 CLC 1355
• COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR v. DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SYSTEM 2013 CLD 1438
• BABAR JAMIL v. CONSERVATOR FOREST, MUZAFFARABAD CIRCLE 2013 PLC(CS) 1482
• ARSHAD MEHMOOD v. BARKAT ALI 2013 PCrLJ 1530

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2013 →

family advocate from Mari Indus lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes