Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MUSTAFA versus RASHID AKBAR ANSARI

Articles 12, 42 and 54 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. VII, R-11 suit for declaration, specific performance of the sale agreement, and the plaintiff's continued injunction of the plaintiff have claimed that the seller was for sale with the defendant. What is the contract? For the plaintiff's property the plaintiff declared the defendant sole and absolute owner and he was sufficiently entitled to the suit property that had the power to transfer / sell to the same person, on the other hand the defendant's lawyer claimed that Was a source dependent agreement. False and fabricated and that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property nor the plaintiff had the option to sell it, nor did the plaintiff attach to the accused that the agreement was made between the original owner of the suit property and the defendant's father. Was. Through his lawyer the owner of the suit property agreed to sell the suit property to the defendant's father because of the failure of the real owner to transfer the property to the defendant's father, the original owner and the defendant's father The specific performance of the deal is pending, with no mention of the alleged sale agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. Neither his father's lawyer nor the fact was requested by the plaintiff in any way, nor was any authority, either requested by the plaintiff or filed with the plaintiff so that It may be shown that the plaintiff was authorized to sell the suit property by the original owner. The plaintiff was either not the party to the alleged plaintiff's own contract between the plaintiff and the defendant nor was the party in his suit on the basis of the formal agreement of the party, in this suit property power of attorney advocate Topi lawyer