Find a Lawyer

MST. NUSRAT ZOHRA versus MST. AZRA BIBI

Gift by father (donor) in favor of daughters from second wife (Plaintiff) Plaintiff's request to deprive daughters from first wife (Plaintiff) was a verbal gift in favor of all daughters, including myself. And in favor of the defendants, the change in the gift was reversed and the trial court ruled that the case was illegal, but the appellate court set aside the same authenticity ounce to prove the oral gift, which in its cross-examination Had confessed that he would not occupy the land, but it was to the defendants that the plaintiff had not submitted a revenue record in support of his plea ounce to prove the gift mutation in favor of him, Was presented to Patwari, in whose presence the donor recorded his statement to the Revenue Officer in front of the gift. The plaintiff limber holder of the village testified as a gift gift mutation testifying that she testified as a gift of free consent and to the defendants with free consent in her country that she made a gift in favor of the defendant through mutation. And testified clearly before the court that he did not contribute. The plaintiff cannot claim any right of oral gift to the plaintiff or has any right to claim the land in the lifetime of the donor, who legally transferred the gift to the defendant in favor of the defendant. That is, the court had false evidence about the trial and misinterpreted the law. Of 1984), Articles 117 and 122 famous supreme court advocate from FR Bannu lawyer