Find a Lawyer

MST. BEVI versus MUHAMMAD DIN

Claims 8, 42 and 54 of the suits, declarations and injunctive suits claimed that they were in possession of the claimant property because their predecessor purchased it in 1939 from the same profession in the interest of the plaintiffs and There was a change in purpose. The plaintiff was certified without providing any documents in the evidence of his claim that he was verbally claimed that his estranged father was the owner of the suit property and that his name was removed from the revenue record in the sustainability proceedings. It did not matter in the oral evidence that the presence of variation which was foreseeable in the interest of the plaintiffs in respect of the property purchased by them was affirmed in favor of the defendants. No evidence, oral or documentary documents were made available to prove that the ownership certificate in favor of the plaintiff Was. Or that the trial case was not justified in the art of the appellate court, that the judgment and order passed by the appellate court's trial court's decision should not be fully settled nor any illegal or material irregularity. Faced with neither the reading of the evidence on the record nor suffering from any false evidence, the exercise of its amended jurisdiction cannot be interfered with by the High Court. famous supreme court advocate from Kumbh lawyer