Section 42 Case for alleged gift conversion by the plaintiff (an uneducated - parishioner / rural woman) in which the minor witnesses of such work as defendant's witnesses were confirmed I had not made such a transaction and payment was already written down. None of the defendant's witnesses was excluded that the plaintiff had explained such acts and receipts and their consequences and entered the plaintiff's factum in the absence of a male member in his family. Was made The defendant's testimony as to the plaintiff's position was that the defendant had presented evidence to change the case, while he denied knowing the presence of the plaintiff Patwari and the tehsildar, while the defendant's witnesses were testified in court. Was not presented because it presented the original trial court's motion for change. The defendant was shown his thumb map on the stamp paper on false pretext without explaining its original contents. The appropriate plaintiff refused to appear before the Revenue Officer to confirm the change of opportunity. While the suit was not approved by the person at the time of confirmation of change, which could suggest or protect his interest, the Revenue Officer did not confirm the plaintiff's change in the open assembly. The iba habeas bill did not prove to be a prerequisite, ie the defendant's intentions to pay the compensation and the disposal of the property to the donors did not prove the declaration of a gift, its acceptance by the plaintiff and its possession. Delivery will not be enough proof. The suit occupied the land
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
