FAZAL HUSSAIN ALIAS FAZAL DIN versus MIRZA MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
Section 42 Registration Act (XVI of 1908), sections 74 and 75 (1) were owned by the suit property for the plaintiff and the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had sold the suit property through the sale of the plaintiff. Registration Required The process of sale by applying to the relevant sub-registrar, on which the plaintiff was summoned, where he proceeded under the provisions of Sections 74 and 75 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908, for the purpose of registering the sale illegally. Sold this case An injunction for this purpose, and the defendant specifically claimed that the plaintiff had specifically requested that he and the defendant have been fighting each other through long civil and criminal litigation, in which case the opportunity for Was not supposed to execute the accused who allegedly committed the sale. Whether his thumb impression on the sale deed was obtained through fraud has not yet been clarified as to why the claimant would sell his property. Such contentious litigation between the defendants, the parties. Nevertheless, the trial court formally noted the circumstances and proceeded to dismiss the case filed by the Court of Appeals of the plaintiffs, which did not take notice of it or did not meet the reasoning of the trial. ? The trial court, based on the legality, justified the defendant's arguing against the defendant that he was untrustworthy and that no receipt was received by the plaintiff and the appellate decision was dismissed and the trial court's The statement was confirmed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
