Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAZIR versus NASIRA SULTANA

Section 2 (h) of the Contract Act, 1872, was occupied by three close relatives, having an agreement under which they agreed that the three parties had applied for the transfer of the house, whichever It was allotted, that the other parties would also have the right to remain in them. The sections they occupy and they will not be evacuated because the underground house was allotted in favor of one of them and it sought to evict others through a claim for the accused in this case. Had, on the basis of the contract agreement, also sued that under the terms of the contract they were entitled to retain their possession and they could not be expelled, the execution of the contract under effect, was fully proved. And such an agreement was valid and according to the law, the House was divided into three parts and each of the parties was in agreement. . The question was his shareholder agreement, the lawful contract under which the executors mentioned their rights, Ed said that the transfer of the house obliged himself that the house had been transferred to him in the matter. So he will not expel the other parties and will not sell them to anyone without the consent of the others; the terms were binding on the contract and as such, the order for the possession of the parts in the possession of the other occupiers was not entitled. Was attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Chowk Azam lawyer