The factual findings by the two courts were presented by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court under the suit filed by the competitor for proof of the specific performance of the bargaining female sales and contract agreement on the suit 12 and 54. The defendant was that the sale agreement was not proved by the plaintiff because she was a bridegroom, the validity check was handed over to the defendant, which was considered for sale yesterday and deposited in her account. The payment was made to her account through a banking channel, which proved by examining bank witnesses through a check of Rs. 325,000 / - and the documents produced by her at the time of submission were plaintiff's English-speaking woman and she was her own The plaintiff testified that he was operating a bank account under which he acted under his signature in English. That he contracted to sell the defendant was executed after reading the contents of the contract that he and his husband's brother were present at the execution of the contract, which appeared before the defendant notary public who After reading the contents of this agreement, he again put his signature on the contract and so was the plaintiff, along with her husband and her son's brother, and in their presence the notary public defender confirmed the deal. A transgender woman may be, but she understood the contents of the agreement that was read to her and He put his signature on this document. This was done on two occasions. The High Court refused to interfere with the decisions and both
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
