The plaintiff, who filed a Section 12 lawsuit, claimed that her father's property suit land was passed on to her as the daughter of the deceased owner, and she never transferred it to her brother, who in that case Was successful in obtaining a variation in oral sales. The plaintiff intended to make the land in his favor. Both the courts rejected the court's decisions that they were influenced by the fact that two of the four plaintiffs' sisters chose to enter the witnessroom and support the transaction, saying the two sisters proved it. There was no other evidence on record in support of the change of sale in favor of the defendants except for being an interested witness and the two sisters mentioned below had the courts failed to read the evidence on the record, which testified Given that two sisters are interested, the case is a false statement. The High Court set aside the adulteration of evidence on record, the simultaneous decision and the decree passed by two courts.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
