The specific performance of the Section 12 Sale Contract is denied by the defendant (an old and uneducated woman) executing the contract, which records on the evidence show that the defendant was simple (CD Saadi) and Pandu Avrat, 60/65 years old at the time; and that she had a healthy husband and raised male offspring, but no one was present at the time of the execution of the agreement. The plaintiff's sons and husband must be part of the contract before the suit is settled. The defendant, however, could not rule out the possibility of influence of the plaintiff (because of his close relatives) because while he was relieving the plaintiff's influence, he had written to the defendant through the author Ali refused to read the same Mary about the agreement. In the absence of evidence, the law requires that he understand it to a great extent and that under his free and intelligent act the plaintiff has to take advantage of such an agreement so he has to prove that the plaintiff had free advice. The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant was not. An old woman, an old and illiterate woman, and alienated the suit land with her free consent and independent adviser, because E's surviving sons and husband were considered to be discretionary, assistance with specific performance of the contract could be denied. The yarn was dismissed even if the execution of the death sentence was proven \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
