Find a Lawyer

MST. KHURSHID BEGUM versus MST. SHAMIM AKHTAR

Section 42 of the Transfer Property Act (IV of 1882), the claimant in the Section 123 suit claims to have purchased the deposit certificate through his foregoing claim that the defendant had paid the amount even though his father had, Investment alone for profit. The trial court dismissed the case, which was upheld by the appellate court's defendant, that the defendant did not file a gift request because it should not be ignored as evidence. Was: And the victim never separated himself from her. The plaintiff of the money's ownership accuracy said in a written statement that the certificate was purchased by his father Late for his sole benefit - although it was not used in the written statement, the doctor said it was in fact The request is a gift request from the father. The record on the evidence of the minor son shows that the deceased had deposited the certificate in the name of the defendant, deposited the cash in the certificate and re-invested the father in the name of the defendant on the same date. The money was given and both gifts were fulfilled under the Islamic law, and according to Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, his father was revealed, and the guardian of the minor was the only person who Could deal with the property of his minor son, it was said that in the case of deposits, there was no fraud or economical misconduct. No, the High Court dismissed the request for a review of the circumstances. immigration advocates phone number from Kamalia Musa lawyer