Find a Lawyer

AISHA versus BAHAWAL

Specific Relief Act 1877 Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 115 Plaintiff ?? Sue against the ratification of consent decree, The trial appellate court reversed the finding of legality consent in the case, On the contrary, the plaintiff's predecessor was approved / the applicants who were alleged by the defendant to have provided written consent of the defendant in the first case in which he had made the oral sale in his favor. Claimed there was no convincing evidence for the question of oral sale and payment of the sale price. It was contended that the plaintiff's female predecessor was also available with the plaintiffs, neither the sale of the property nor payment of the sale price was sufficiently proved and the plaintiffs denied the fact. That his predecessor had ever made a statement in court. The property in question failed to produce evidence of the defendant's testimony that the deceased had appeared in C, the thumb confession written statement or the counseling order sheet attached to it was retained in the trial court of the former case. Part of the record was not made, consent was approved within five days of the registration of consent, no recovery or no contract was sold to pay the sale price. Although the defendant in his first case claimed that he had purchased the land about six months before the institution suit, which ended on the decree of consent, the record on the evidence justified the lower appellate court. Did not justify it property advocate from Matli lawyer