Find a Lawyer

MIAN MUHAMMAD AMIN versus MST. KHURSHEED BEGUM ALIAS NASEEM BEGUM THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS

Section 42 The plaintiff's woman claimed to be the owner of the property and challenged the sale process in favor of the defendants primarily on the basis of fraud between the defendant, her husband, and her husband's plaintiff. What was The evidence failed to prove his suit on the suit property. The only oral, unconvincing and unreasonable statements were made by the witnesses who were cousins, tenants in the same case, but the suit land farmer and his lawyer did not say that the witnesses were too brief about the plaintiff's possession. And sketched. No details or details were provided about the suit land, although the plaintiff's lawyer stated as a witness that the plaintiff's possession was through the tenants, but without giving their names and the lease / tenancy terms witnesses Said, when the cross-examination was conducted by the defendants, they could not maintain their claims and the plaintiff deliberately left for the relevant period to furnish a comprehensive record of Jumbes or Khasra Garwadi so that they could pay rent. Establish their own physical or occupation by the bearers. No proof of payment of land revenue was provided by the claimant and it has not been established who the tenants are to cultivate the land from which the defendants allegedly demanded acquisition of the produce. No tenant, who was cultivating the land under the claimant, was examined and no lease / tenancy agreement was presented by the claimant in this regard. Oral evidence, which proved inadequate and difficult to control, on the other hand, the defendant's possession satisfactorily property advocate from Gari Mori lawyer