Find a Lawyer

AHMAD DIN versus ABDUL GHANI

Evidence of Section 54 law of the Property Act 1882 (10 of 1984), Article 76 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Section 100 sale transaction evidence in favor of two sale deeds, one in favor of the plaintiff and the other in favor of it. The defendant canceled the sale, which was in favor of the defendants, while he acknowledged that the plaintiffs in favor of the plaintiffs were also found occupying the undivided land, which was sold to them by the seller under the sale. Was claimed to be the owner of the land. Question: Based on sales, the original sale could not be committed. By the preparation of secondary evidence, the sale process by the accused was not satisfactory nor was the stamp seller, who had sold the stamp paper on which the sale was written, nor any writer who had sold the work. Was listed. Nor was there a slight testimony that supported the statement of the identity of the allegedly sold-out dead council lawyer, who was not helpful in addition to being a practicing lawyer. The local body of the area was involved in politics and thus he was interested in his vote bank. No one in the village had come forward to give evidence or was involved in the execution of the sale agreement. The possession of the land was not with the defendant as a whole. In light of the record in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below have rightly found that the sale of the land was not established in favor of the defendants by the plaintiffs batch while the plaintiffs did not knowingly file their case. The owners were given a decision based on their ownership. The registered sale in their favor immigration advocate from Lalamusa lawyer