Article 12 The specific performance of the contract to sell to the plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff in the interest of the defendants had entered into a contract with the seller and handed over the possession to her. The original owner was someone else and his predecessor in interest was the sole plaintiff, who temporarily seized the plaintiff in November 1984 in in. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Was, in the interest of the defendants, died on Val 4 6 on 198 died, and until his death there was no dispute or dispute concerning the possession of the plaintiff between the parties. Didn't happen. The High Court was not convinced that the period of temporary possession could be stayed for a period of one and a half years, even when it was alleged in the interest of the defendants that the Benjamin High Court denied that the defendants. In the interest of Alias, Peshwar invested a large sum of money but did not earn any. At the time of entering into an agreement to sell the rent or profit to the real owner, the defendant was the proprietor of the house in the interest of the plaintiff, further possession of the plaintiff was involuntary. The defendants conceded that their father had temporarily handed over the possession of the plaintiff to the plaintiff but failed to establish the fact that the plaintiff had purchased the house against consideration and it was in the interest of his predecessor. Was. The defendants who committed the fraud failed to prove their defense and the plaintiff proved their case and the trial court properly granted the decree for the specific performance of the contract and the defendant's expulsion. Dismissed the appeal in the circumstances
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
