In the Articles 17 and 79 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), the evidence for the specific performance of the sale of the Section 12 suit agreement was claimed by the plaintiff that the owners of the suit land executed the sale agreement in their favor. And received the balance but sold the land to the accused. The plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court, but the lower appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff that Modi succeeded in proving that the landlord was, in fact, agreeing to sell the land in favor of the plaintiff and in that respect the agreement was genuine. As executed by them. The plaintiff successfully proved the author of the document, having successfully presented two witnesses who had claimed to themselves that the good buyers had a solid and confident impression in support of their version. Did not present evidence and if they had not been handed over to the defendants. The disputants were lucrative buyers of the property and the change was affirmed in their favor why the possession of the property was not granted. The mutation was approved in favor of the accused in connection with the original sellers in the league. The defendants failed to identify any illegal or material misconduct in the judgment and the lower appellate court refused to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. Decisions and Decisions Approved by Lower Appellate Court Revision, Threatened
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
