Find a Lawyer

FAZAL HUSSAIN versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM

Section45 Law Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 118 Properly Transfer Act (1882 IV) E, Section 54 mutation of liability for sale conflicts to prove conclusive results of fact, mutation of sale plaintiffs In connection with the following controversial mutation claiming to be the owner of the suit property, the two courts, respectively, dismissed the case, and at the same time appealed that the validity party, which relied on the changes, be the law. Was to prove admission in conformity with the principles of E-testimony, 1984, which was applicable to prove the admission was necessary for the competent beneficiary of the mutation to initiate proof of a mutated transaction, in the present case, the two primary courts correctly harmonized. Was. Finding factual evidence against the plaintiffs because they failed to prove with sufficient evidence on record that the sale was made between the plaintiff and the original owner, with the fact that the plaintiffs established the fact Failing to agree that the transfer of land between the plaintiffs in question of the components of section 54 of the Transfer Property Act, 1882, was received by the original owner of the land, was not attracted where any jurisdiction I was not identified with the defect, nor was any accusation of weakness in the judgments and orders given under the legal courts. Yes, the High Court refused to intervene top advocates from Patika lawyer