MST. MIR BAHAR versus SAUDABAD COLONY TRUST THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Failure to submit an exchange letter of specific performance of the contract to sell Article 12 transfer evidence (Article 10 of 1984), Article 72, the plaintiff's argument was that the suit's welfare officer had transferred the suit plot in his favor. But the trust refused to implement it. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in favor of the lease, but the lower appellate court rejected the same justification that it was the welfare officer who had allocated the piece of land if it had been allocated. If that was done, it was unacceptable. There was no such option for the welfare officer in the by-laws of the trust; the plaintiff's letter of dependence was a bicycle style document, which also signified a bicycle child, and the letter was not presented in evidence here. Even during the appeal no attempt was made to prove the existence. The High Court of this transfer letter refused to take action and made a decision on the basis of a document that had no legs to stand on. Once a corrupt perpetrator alleged in his claim that he was in possession Was put on hold and claimed that he was allotted a plot by the welfare officer in question but the plaintiff was not able to prove that the welfare officer in the warehouse had been in illegal possession in question and was not allowed by a competent person or trust. Did not occupy or plot the plot, therefore, the plaintiff was merely an innocent who was always acquitted. The High Court responsible for doing so upheld the verdict and the order passed by the lower appellate court was dismissed.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
