Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YUSUF versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD

Clause 13 contradicts the evidence for dealing with the proof of legal fate on the basis of shaft shack, shafi khalt and shaft jar for termination of the case under clause 13, which the plaintiff stated that they were sold to the plaintiff on 16-8 1991. Was told about. Rai Dera while the informant stated that he told the plaintiff about the sale on 28 7 1991 when the plaintiff saw him in the dealer of the informant and the tenant from whom the plaintiff seized the suit land his brother. And the uncles were mamas. The plaintiff obtained possession of the suit land a few days after the sale, respectively, and it was appropriate that the plaintiff was right in front of the plaintiff's enclosure, investigating that since the defendant had taken possession, He was the plaintiff's first cousin in the farm, who was also a witness in the present case, also bought some land from the same vendor on the same day. Cross-examination, it is stated that the plaintiff's cousin had informed the informant and the plaintiff that the land in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff the day the sale was registered, therefore, the evidence was proved wrong. The plaintiffs' courts below did not find any evidence to dismiss the case wrong. \ R \ n \ r \ n ask a advocate free from Miran Shah lawyer