Section 11 Specific Relief Act (of 1877), Claims Section 42 and 8 and suit for sale by plaintiff to the plaintiff's land minority by his older brother, but claim by the registered Power of Attorney plaintiff That he is a good buyer for it. The trial court dismissed the limitation on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have the minority notice and spent a large sum of money on developing the suit land suit while the plaintiff was declared a minor at the time of the suit transaction. At the time of the execution of the General Power of Attorney, he was thus unable to do so and on the basis of which the sale of the suit was invalid, permission was not obtained from the Guardian Judge before obtaining the authority of the attorney and selling the suit land. And the plaintiff was in front. The neighbors, therefore, pleaded that the defendant was unfamiliar with the plaintiff's allegations by the plaintiff, that the defendant would not be considered to confess to the minority of the plaintiff nor that the sale of the suit land was paid to the plaintiff. Nor was it spent on it, so it cannot be said that it was not sold for the welfare of the minor, from which it showed that the defendant was not a good buyer of the suit land. The suit enjoyed the possession of the land at the time of the sale of the suit, thus, it was required to return the money received from its sale and the cost of the improvement. Was responsible, if no suit was made by land. The plaintiff's mother did not support the sale of the suit The suit was decided in the circumstances \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
