Find a Lawyer

MUSHTAQ AHMAD versus JAFFAR

Sections 42 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), section 54 suit for declaration and permanent injunction the plaintiff claimed that there was a suit property for purchase by unregistered document at Rs 1100. The evidence was unacceptable in favor of the plaintiff being unregistered. That and the same was obtained from the seller through fraud and misrepresentation, the trial court has reversed the appellate court's decision / order by the Appellate Court High Court, showing evidence of the restoration of the trial court. ? The plaintiff was held in possession of the property before the eviction by the plaintiff, which was relied upon by the plaintiff who has successfully proved the document in which the present plaintiff paid and took possession. Given that the plaintiff did not present such seller and author to prove that the documents were the result of fraud and misrepresentation, section 54 of the Property Act, 1882 did not apply to the countryside. , Where the suit property is located, the Supreme Court dismissed the application and refused to appeal. jobs for fresh advocates from Hyderabad lawyer