Arts 87, 117 and 120 of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), the proof of the owner of the ounces of the Sush property died illegally, the plaintiff was his widow who asserted in heritage that the defendant was the plaintiff. Not entitled to inheritance because during her lifetime she was divorced by the deceased. Defendants were obliged to prove a fact by means of sound evidence, because they held that the deceased had divorced the plaintiff and that he had negated the fact on which the defendant defended. Statement. Sworn before the trial court that her husband had never divorced and she was never told about the divorce that the defendants had been divorced to prove positive, divorce facts And the confirmation, relevant to the positive evidence of divorce was the registration of the stamp, the divorce instrument, the actual divorce, the registration of the register and the alleged divorce author's statement, mostly certified copies of documentary evidence of law evidence, Article 87 of 1984 was not certified, therefore, the original record was not acceptable by the defendants. Ryah was not present, therefore, there was little money in the documentary evidence presented by the defendants. Defendants of Price had verbally alleged that various departments had also found that the plaintiff had divorced through the adjournment but nothing was proved on record as the files recorded by the trial court were based on the evidence on file. Accordingly, he had reasonable reasoning, while relying on the lower appellate court error. By Plaintiff's High Court
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
