Find a Lawyer

GHULAM RASOOL versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE

The Punjab Pre-Immunity Act, 1913, Section 15, Transfer of Property Act (I82 of I82), Section 53A, the father of the plaintiff, agreed to sell the plot `B to a certain amount, from which it was made a partial sum. Received and transferred the occupation proposal. The seller on which he built his house \ M \ ere terminated the case and received a pre-arrest order against "B" and, having executed it, seized the same plaintiff. The heirs of the seller brought the case against M against. And the agreement B sale records for the avoidance of the sale contract and the acquisition of the plot or alternatives to recover the outstanding balance sale price showed that the deceased seller (the plaintiff's father) did not claim any interest in the secured plot. Is. Neither, interfering with the pre-emption suit nor claiming the unpaid sale price from \ B \ or \ M from, resulted in a successful pre-emptive right-to-vote vote, resulting in the claim of \ 'M the \ will be substituted for the sale contract The plaintiffs expressly disclaimed the unsold sale price claim at the trial of this suit but were on record to understand that the unanimous sale The price `Bby had paid in his life because the silence of such a seller for a long time after this period had been voiced against the claims made. However, the plaintiffs are allowed to abolish the effect of the first vacancy and revoke all the work done under them. This sale agreement will be clearly ineligible and will be the subject of aiding the plaintiffs to commit fraud. online advocate from Rawala Kot lawyer