Articles 17 (2) and 79 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), section 12 suit for sale by brother (male defendant) and his real sister / co-owner (female defendant) as general counsel Implementation) The suit acknowledges the defendant's written statement verifying his name without mentioning his name on behalf of the male defendant as well as the female defendant. The defendant has himself been examined and in support of his claim, the trial court erred by the trial court for the eviction of evidence by the male defendant in the witness agreement. Kept up The witnesses acknowledged the execution of the sale agreement to prove the execution of the sale agreement, but could not such admission apply to the female defendant, neither the male defendant nor the female defendant. There was no general attorney nor did he consent to the sale contract, the female defendant did not enter a written statement and no evidence of her service was on record. Before entering into a contract of sale, the plaintiff was usually required to present or verify a lawyer, as was claimed by the male respondent court, by the male defendant, in cases involving women, especially illiterates. It was necessary to take appropriate precautions and precautions. Depending on the admission of the male defendant and the consideration of the property of the female plaintiff without consideration, there was no party to the contract of sale, with her consent and the opportunity to give the female defendant a hearing, thus The land cannot be transferred to the claimant.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
