Section 42 and QQ law martyrdom (of 1984 of 10), the declaration of contract and Article 79 suit scope for the specific performance of two witnesses of the agreement to sell the plaintiff filed for the declaration while the defendant The claim that the plaintiff filed for the specific performance of the contract was that he was the owner of the suit land and the sale was in favor of the defendant and the contract was a breach of law and fact and the case was based on instability and fraud. And the plaintiffs' case was dismissed while the defendant was given a verdict as well as the plaintiff's own right to double He was obliged to prove the contract to sell, the two impounding witnesses were signed in the impeachment agreement of the sale but only one witness appeared in court saying that the witness did not cite the contract of sale and receipt in his examination. Tho Chief Document could not be corroborated by the minor witnesses during the examination in the Chief Justice as it was rightly admitted by the said witness that the other minor witness was not claimed to have won by the defendants. And was not sought by the court process as part of the contract's performance The claimants had come into the possession of the suit land. The sale could not be made, the plaintiff had proved his request through reliable and convincing evidence that he was the owner of the suit land. The author was not endorsing the author's testimony, but rather wrote the agreement that the son's author's testimony was of no use. The execution of the sale transaction agreement was not proven because the same respondent
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
