Find a Lawyer

MST. NASEEM AKHTAR versus NASIR JAVED

Thirty-year-old documentary evidence of section 42 Proof of Act (in 1872), Articles 72 and 90 of the Constitution evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 72 and 100 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 115, in the absence of extraordinary witnesses The provisions of the Impact Act, by the present courts of fact applicable to that testimony, 1984, the owner of the suit property executed the disputed seal in favor of his daughter-in-law in 1952, and transferred the property in his favor, The property owner then made the transfer again. On 11 11 1997, according to the property in favor of her daughter, through a registered Gift Dead Plaintiff, she claimed ownership on the basis of the stamp that was executed in favor of her mother, and the Gift Dead Secret, named by the accused in her possession. As a witness appeared and stated that it was at that time the petitioner's authorization and the seal were reduced in writing, the secretariat also acknowledged that the property owner had in his presence a minor waiver on the seal. Signed with The Talent Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and the judgment and order was upheld by the appellate court and it was raised by the defendant that the seal was not proved in accordance with the provisions of the evidence, valid 1984 The Arbitration Procedure Act, 1872 applied, and it did not apply to the law, as it was issued in the year 1984, the 1984 trial court correctly concluded that the property of the suit was the property of the owner I was transferred in favor of my daughter-in-law. At the time of her marriage and the plaintiff was the legal heir, the suit was the property's own. The trial court also correctly held that the gift registered in favor of the defendant. criminal advocate from Ahmed pur Sial lawyer