NIAZ RASOOL THROUGH MUHAMMAD BILAL versus MST. PARVEEN IKRAM
Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AXLI, R27 (1) (b) The suit Appellate Court for the declaration of transfer of property as security The plaintiff / defendant asserts that the dispute The house was moved. The name of the defendant / appellant is only in accordance with security under a business that his (i.e. the plaintiff's plaintiff's) husband was transacting on behalf of the plaintiff. The disputed house was moved in the name, the effect being that he is the owner of the disputed house and was never transferred to the defendant, and the transfer letter issued by the relevant department housing was void and the defendant. The defendant did not appear before the court and instead appeared before his lawyer. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by him, however, the High Court had claimed the plaintiff on the appeal by the plaintiff / appellant. The FF applied to the Department of Housing for the transfer of the disputed house itself and agreed to transfer it through the sale. The plaintiff did not prove the fact that the disputed house relocation was for security purposes. That the plaintiff was not, as the landlord, but merely as a tenant, and that he had additional evidence in terms of O.L.I., R. 27 (1) (b), CPC. The test should be allowed. In order to declare a balanced judgment, it was necessary that the plaintiff in her examination acknowledged the Chief that she appeared before the relevant Housing Committee to confirm the nature of the exchange but strangely made such a statement to her. Would have checked
