Section 42 of the Suit for Declaration was denied that the plaintiff believed that his lawyer had fraudulently sold the land to the defendants and that neither party had denied that the suit was a landlord. Was claimed by the plaintiff in his village in lieu of that. It was alleged that the plaintiff's lawyer sold the suit to another defendant who had separated from him, while the plaintiff claims that the lawyer had committed fraud with the accused. Was that he had signed the alleged sale agreement. And according to the development authority's record, the plaintiff was the owner of the suit. And that the sale of the profit to the provisor turned out to be an obligation and he was obliged to buy against the property from the legitimate owner of the property. The second defendant, who claimed to be the major buyer of the suit property, also failed to make any attempt. To find out who was the real owner of the property and did not take actual sales action or provide any trivial testimony. And thus it was not proven that the sale agreement allegedly made by the lawyer was the result of fraud, and false, as well as the false Abdul Abidio when the original sale was invalid, followed by the sale process. Would be false too. Such as where the basic document was not proven, and was rejected. The entire structure, on the basis of which, falls on its own, the High Court set aside the orders of the lower courts and ruled that the plaintiff's review case was allowed, in the circumstances.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
