Find a Lawyer

MUKHTAR AHMAD KHAN versus MUHAMMAD SHUJAAT KHAN

Section 12 of this evidence (10 of 1984), Articles 61 and 84 of the contract for the specific performance of the contract to sell the plaintiffs preparing the two agreements, suggested that the defendants agreed to sell the property. And the defendant was admitted in a subsequent contract. The defendants had previously accepted the agreement but as a result the agreement was not accepted by them and they stated that the document was being questioned after fake and fabricated documents which were confirmed by the handwriting experts HC. Was done by checking handwriting. Experts, after compiling the information, the photographs and the agreed agreement with the original contract and the contentious document, concluded that the plaintiff (appellant's) forfeiture of his signature on the disputed one by comparison of the contracted signatures and the contentious signatures. Was an attempt to make. There seemed to be a mark The acknowledged sign of difference between the two signatures was the flow, the same angle, an interval that was used over time, and the raw effort to copy the signatures into the controversial signatures. The focus of the counterfeiter was to duplicate the words, and they completely lost the other features of the signature, such as signatures, words, angles and spaces between different parts of the name, with no fluency between the two signatures. That the controversial document was signed was a fake and did not require any expert opinion. The forgery was made in a hurry after the document was a forged document and based on it claimed specific performance. best advocate from Upper Deval lawyer