Find a Lawyer

SUPER AUTOMOBILE TRACTOR DEALERS versus ALLAH DITTA

Contract Act 1872 Section 2 (h) Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 100 Second Appeal Suit for Recovery of Money Paid for Purchase of Tractor, Plaintiff Claims to Refund Her Money That the tractor is pending The case was for the plaintiff to his son who fraudulently registered him with the name of the plaintiff's son in his name in the Department of Excise and Taxation records, however, the named defendant Based on the receipt issued by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's son purchased the tractor in connection with the purchase of the tractor by the plaintiff's son 14 Had paid Rs 390 and the recovery was also released, thus can not be considered a receipt for payment of 15,000 rupees. The first appellate court for the defendant's purchase of the tractor by the plaintiff, on the basis of the evidence, justified that the plaintiff's son wanted to keep his tractor which he eventually purchased. The defendant did not prove the defendant's transfer to him after presenting the evidence, to prove that the amount of Rs 15,000 was refunded from the defendant in return and not in return. I was a tractor, there was a record. He was applauded by the first appellate court, who argued the important questions were different from the trial court's findings. The second appeal was not guaranteed to interfere with the decision made by the first appellate court. famous lower court advocate from Bolan lawyer