The complainant in connection with the illegal possession of Sections I&I alleged that he was the legal owner of the plot in dispute. Because he lived mostly abroad and visited his hometown once or twice a year, he had appointed a watchman to supervise him. Were building structures illegally and on it. Respondents countered the complaint, claiming that they had purchased the property in question from the complainant under the sale agreement and the possession was handed over to them. That they paid the complainant as part of the sale. Because the complainant failed to pay part of his contract, he filed a special performance case, pending before the court. That the matters did not fall within the scope of the Illegal Disposition Act, 2005, the respondents claimed that the sale agreement was executed by the complainant's lawyer, but he failed to produce any such documents in the record. Stating that the alleged lawyer was legally authorized or legally recognized. Neither the complainant's agent nor the lawyer respondents were recorded to record that the possession of the plot in the dispute was handed over to them under the complainant's signature or the terms and conditions of the alleged sale agreement. Unless otherwise filed by the defendants under Section 3/4 of the Unlawful Settlement Act 2005 after the complaint was filed by the complainant which had no legal basis and the unlawful and unlawful possession of the respondents To protect
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
