Find a Lawyer

SHER BAZ KHAN versus SAHABZADI TIWANA

Contract Act 1872 Section 11 and 183 Legislative Martyrs (10 of 1984), Article 114 The legal documentary evidence of the sale of property owned by a minor by persons claiming to be the father of the woman has clearly proved this That the plaintiff owned the property when it was modest. Was sold by people claiming to be his father's lawyer. Any contract or transaction with the minor was void, could not consent to a binding contract for the minor, in the slightest case the principle of estoppel was also applicable. Due to being a minor, the minor was adopted during the minority of the woman, so on the basis of this, the designated shopkeepers in such mutation had no rights or title in the land under which the sale was made. No independent evidence was presented, in question, was entered and only approved because in the order recorded by the Revenue Officer, the minor's father was mentioned by the presence or signature of the authority sheet. It will not be proved that he has sold the land under question, and also for the interest of the minor for the land, so that Zuba The reality of a new transaction can be demonstrated by the variation in sales, especially as it relates. The property of a minor and a girl, the seller must prove through positive evidence that the transaction was entered into with the minor's free consent and consent, that in the case of the minor, the sale is for his benefit and welfare. The idea was approved, and in evidence, it was black and white. That is, if a woman's condition famous lower court advocate from Lalamusa lawyer