. acceptance of the applicant`s plea concerning the validity of the sales contract and the exercise of its discretion in favour of the applicant, by implementing such provisions. The Court of Procedure) was granted, the judgment and the decree under appeal were set aside and the applicant`s appeal for specific performance of the sales contract of 20.1.1994 was dismissed. The complainant. 70,000/- per acre and per deed of sale were agreed for export on 31.12.1998. It was discouraged that the complainant r. 1.50.000 / – on the day of performance of the contract, rule 1.00.000 / – on 1.1.1995 and Rs. paid. 4.

If the buyer does not register to terminate the contract, you can take legal action to ask him to respect the contract and pay the balance of 20 lakes. . Performance under the contract of sale in favour of the applicant and amendment of the judgment which prevents defendant 1-4 from not disturbing the possession and joy of ownership of the defendant`s settlement. Performance of the contract of sale in favour of respondent 1-applicant in respect of the immovable property of the recourse plan. In addition, it issued a permanent interim order against the accused. the enforcement of immovable property with regard to the appeal on the basis of the contract of sale of 25-12-1983 (Annex P-1), as well as for the adoption of a permanent injunction which prevents the defendants from doing so. . (iv) Following the preparation of a report by the Treasury, it was established that the accused were in possession. Since the applicants had not contested the contract of sale of 23.10.1969. any case of first emergency; (b) they had not approached the court with clean hands; (c) the delay in calling into question the validity of the aforementioned sales contract. To exhibit. The questions raised in the action for examination are those which I would have noticed here, namely, inter alia, the validity of the contract of sale and/or the grant of ownership in favour of the contract.

. Provisions of section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act and there is no question of validity of the contract of sale and payment of the fine. That`s right. The claimant had concluded a contract of sale on 15 July 1964. In favour of the defendant for remuneration, paragraph 1.000/- and a serious amount were paid by paragraph 975/- and the balance had to be paid. paid at the time of registration of the deed of sale. The sales contract mentioned is presented by the defendant in the appeal in the event of exit. Paragraph 53 also claims by the defendant that the defendant has been presented. .

Counterfeiting and document making, for example. B Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-3. If it was the validity of the ex. P-3 itself, the question of the secondary evidence of the ex. P-1 could be raised, but in this case. examined Hardip Singh, who witnessed this document as a PW-1. This witness was extensively cross-examined, but nothing negative emerged from his testimony, as the validity of the agreement. Sadhu Singh and Dalip Singh had previously concluded an agreement, while Sadhu Singh sold his share by deed of sale to the applicants on 11.11.1988. .

.