Find a Lawyer

MUNAWAR AHMAD versus REHMAT KHAN

Section 42 The claim of the plaintiffs for the declaration was that they were the owners of the suit property and the transfer proceedings in favor of the defendants were fake and fraudulent and they were granted temporary possession of the suit with which the incident took place. The transfer process was processed by the defendants. Not only did the defendants spend huge sums to improve the suit land, considering the sale of the suit property boundaries, they also built their houses on the same premises that provided competent and minor witnesses to the transfer agreement. Who supported the execution and transfer of possession. No witnesses or documents were produced by the plaintiff in their favor to prove their evidence that the plaintiff had failed to prove the fact that they had temporarily left the property under question to the defendants. It was either given by the court or given by the Sadaf (gift). The material and the law on file are properly applied which shows the information on the harmony The act in the amending jurisdiction cannot be disturbed unless the unidentified verdict is misleading or implicit Illegal modifications are excluded under the circumstances.

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015

• NORTHERN BOTTLING (PVT.) LTD. v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary 2015 PTD 231
• REGIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE, UBL MARDAN v. HABIB UL HASSAN 2015 PLC 246
• UMAR GUL v. SAMAR KHAN 2015 PCrLJ 248
• REHMATULLAH alias GUD v. JAN ALAM 2015 YLR 249
• SIYAR KHAN v. IBRAHIM 2015 MLD 258
• ROSHAN DANI v. WAPDA through Chairman 2015 PLC(CS) 263
• PESHAWAR UNIVERSITY TEACHER\'S ASSOCIATION (PUTA) v. GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA 2015 CLC 265
• Mrs. NAHEED KAMAL AZFAR v. G.D.A. 2015 CLC 282

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2015 →

lawer from fb area from Kacha Khooh lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes