In Articles 42, 54 and 55 of the Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Sections 17 and 49, the defendants of the defendant claimed that the predecessor was his real sister in the interest of the defendants, Sold it to consider selling a suit property. The amount of Rs 21,000 was seized and handed over by unregistered sale deed and the defendants had no right to confirm the inheritance in their favor. The suit was dismissed simultaneously. The benefit of the registered sale deed was bound to prove beyond any doubt that such a move was in doubt. Following the evidence presented by the plaintiff with sufficient and conclusive and oral and documentary evidence, it was found that she had failed to bear her burden through cautious, conclusive and reliable oral or documentary evidence to show that anything had happened. It was not available that the claimant was listed in the revenue record. As the owner of the suit property through sale and the name of the plaintiff Jim Bondi the name of the claimant was registered as a co-partner in the suit property and according to Khasra Garwadi no unregistered work was registered from which It was revealed that he did not own the suit property as the sister of the plaintiff's special owner during the hearing in the witness box. In her cross-examination, she stated that her sister did not transfer her part to any mutation or any other way and that she was a minor witness to the unregistered process and stated that she had affected the function herself. And in her presence, the sister and two other male witnesses were affected by the same ring who made her cross-examination.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
