Sections 124 and 125 of the Special Relief Act (I of 1877), the Section 12 suit, were dismissed by the trial court for specific performance of the contract, and upon appeal by the plaintiff, the appellate court passed the judgment and order passed by the trial court. Name separated. The agreement affected the legitimate exchange transactions between the parties, under which they transferred the possession of the shops to each other, a clause in the agreement showed that the plaintiff shifted the area of the adjoining area to the defendant. Have agreed to give. The plaintiff's ownership of the plaintiff's defendant took advantage of this exchange transaction and the shop was sold if the west side of the disputed shop was disposed of by the plaintiff's property and if the highway department were to cross the shop area. Which was transferred in favor of the Exchange Transaction Shop which was transferred to the plaintiff by E. The exchange agreement was obtained by the Highway Authority under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the plaintiff was instructed to Demolish the store and remove the supermarket shop in dispute over the acquisition of the plaintiff as a result of the acquisition process, the defendant was under legal duty by the plaintiff provided under Sections 124 and 125 of the Contract Act, 1872 To compensate for the loss, whichever person accepts or receives any benefit, even under an agreement Tangible and unenforceable, he could avail what he had received or to recover the promise under the terms of Section 124/125 of the Contract Act, 1872; in the present case the exchange transaction was valid and the defendant had Had enjoyed the proceeds from the sale of the
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
