Article 13, The issue of the method of sale, sale or exchange was that the transaction was not to be vacated and, at the same time, fixing or disorganizing matters would have lost significance if the parties had presented their evidence. So the trial court erroneously placed the burden of proof. Setting up matters to prove the exchange of land on the plaintiff, and the burden of proof on the party that was not bound to prove the same was wrong, the exchange of land did not come into the realm of sale and it was not vacant. Prove the exchange because they had taken refuge in him so they could end their right to self-determination. The Patwari Circle did not create a "fiduciary" of the plaintiff's property nor did the illegal alterations be brought to the record, nor was the pre-authorization right sufficient and neither could it be defeated by techniques. The evidence filed by the parties was insufficient to arrive at a verdict only. In this case it was necessary that the court must summon the Patwari as a witness in order to present the relevant variations. Demand and the value of the land adjacent to the suit land sold in the past were also accepted and both the judgment and judgment Beat was defused. The following courts were set aside and the trial proceeded in the trial court with the direction of examining the Patwari constituency as a judicial witness and deciding the case. \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
