Section 53 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), the execution of Section 42, will be claimed that the deceased original owner of the suit land had a will to dedicate the suit to him and on this basis he made the change. Certified in their favor. The applicants who claimed to be the challengers said they were successful in canceling the conversion and mutation. The collector respondents claimed that they were exclusively entitled to land and this Denied that the applicants belonged to the original owner, the trial court said, but the appellate court ordered the same document to appear for the alleged deceased, was not on the stamp paper and was also unregistered. , One of the minor witnesses to this document was not examined and the other witness merely stated that he had It was a will, but it is not stated that the deceased original owner had executed the same in his presence there was no significance in proving the execution of the Will B of such a statement y The alleged testator's trial court was reportedly not. The testator's conclusions regarding the applicant's relationship were correctly reached, but for wrong and contradictory reasons, such evidence was ignored and the appellate court, based on the misconceptions of the appellate court, Because the verdict was disqualified and not heard, was set aside and the trial court will reinstate these persons. This was \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
