The suit was decided for a Section 42 suit based on an oral gift, but because of this the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff could not prove the facts of the oral gift through any compelling evidence. At the time of the marriage there was no evidence on record to prove that the deceased woman / plaintiff's mother, her grandfather, had in fact transferred the possession of the suit land by gift for 4 to 5 years or mortgage case. Plaintiffs did not support the plaintiff's case between the exchange and the mortgage transaction involved in the marriage of the married / married woman, proving that the defendant would prevent the sale of the property to the deceased woman / whip. The mortgage was filed in view of some of the customs customs but failed to prove the existence of any custom at the time of marriage. In the absence of illegal or malpractice, the decision of the deceased woman / crores of appeal cannot be interfered with by the High Court. \ r \ n \ 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.
