To declare the effect of Section Su42 that the plaintiff is the owner and the owner of the disputed home in favor of the defendant applicant and stated that the home is invalid, is in violation of the law, and is void and ineffective. Plaintiffs 'Rights The plaintiffs' view was that the suitor had given her the dowry at the time of her marriage with her father-in-law, saying that the fact that the plaintiff had sued the plaintiff in the marriage name together with the Welderity Secretary Union. Was ordered. The committee appeared in the witness box on behalf of the defendant, presenting with the original designated record, a copy of which was kept on file and stated that the witness was not examined by the defendant by the applicant. Nevertheless, the plaintiff's witnesses testified to the contents. The contents of the marriage contract as well as the marriage contract were present The proven plaintiff was the applicant, to prove the three requirements of a valid gift under the law, namely the offer, acceptance and possession, but he proved the act of the gift. The evidence provided by him did not support the defendant's father's profession but strangely, his signature on gift deeds was largely present in the Urdu donor when the gift was for his life at the time of the act. It was in the afternoon and instead of the gift work, the defendant was signed by some of the applicant's relatives, giving the gift The testimony of the witnesses was the court's guarantee that the defendant's brother appeared in the witness's box on the grievance issue, which left a lot of stain on the defendant's version when he defended the defendant's marriage. Supported. Controversial house like text
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
