Section 12 and 22 arbitrary scope of immovable property for the specific performance of the sale contract affected the owner of the suit property unintentionally and after his death the property was transferred to the plaintiff, while the plaintiff was removed from the inheritance. While the plaintiff claims that he has paid the deceased in full. The owner, who contracted the sale in his favor, dismissed the trial court, but the lower appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's justification under section 22 of the Special Relief Act 1877, not expected by the arbitral court. There were situations where the contract was executed under a specific performance decree such as taking advantage of the seller's property seller or legal inheritance unfairly after disappointment in participating in any part of the property owner's, stamp seller / Along with Scribet and the minor witnesses, one of them is his nephew and sells a fake deal. , Which was an unregistered document, the plaintiff remained a mother until the mutation was obtained in favor of the defendants and then filed this claim if they received approximately the total amount of consideration If he played a major part, he could demand a change in his favor, as well as having a close relative for the possession of the suit or at least the registration of the contract, so the deceased owned the property in his name. He was rightly inherited, who had paid almost the entire amount of the property, so his occupation and alteration would not be demanded. The lower appellate court failed to interpret the evidence available on record as required by law
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
