Find a Lawyer

ALLAH BAKHSH versus MST. BHAGAN

Section 42 of the Limitation Act (190 IX of 19088), Section 18 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Section 11 of the Martyrs (1984 of 10), Arts 117, 118 and 163 suits were ordered declining suits And the order was retained to execute the execution of the sale agreement. The defendants' arguments were that the claims filed by the three defendants had previously been withdrawn from the statements of the parties and that the defendants recognized the validity of the controversial sale case. The knowledge of the dispute sale deed was in fact a There was a question that was supported by the evidence. The lawsuit, filed by the plaintiffs, did not preclude the first case from being filed by some of the plaintiffs, who had no alliance with the suit property, in the subsequent proceedings, possibly as race Judeta. Couldn't work because nothing was on record to prove it. The landowner / plaintiff's father was ever served or was shown to have a controversial sale name, in the nature of the pre-trial case and the manner in which it was withdrawn. The absence of testimonies from the defendants was suggested, which testified on oath that there was no sale proceedings between the parties, the burden of proof was diverted to the defendants, who neither Did not present the slightest testimony, nor did anyone testify. In the absence of evidence of evidence, the defendants may be given weight. Thus, the finding of the courts below could not be legally sustained, which did not rule out the legality of the extent of the three plaintiffs who had been convicted in the previous case. online advocate from Kunjah lawyer