Find a Lawyer

GHULAM RASUL versus MST. GOHRAN BIBI THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES

Section 42 mutant Ones challenged the diversion of the sale, proving the identity of the maker plaintiff, alleging that she had not sold her property and that she had not appeared before the Revenue Officer. Nor was the trial court dismissed on the thumb mark but the appeal was ruled out by the plaintiff plaintiff denying the sale transaction and the resulting change, to prove the same. It was moved to the defendant's document that does not indicate that the defendant was present at the time of entering the mutation. It was a recognition Tehsildar / lymbrdar. The defendants failed to prove with separate and independent evidence that the mutation was legal, valid and considerate, or that the plaintiff had received valuable value or had consented to the sale of the land, the Appellate Court ruled. There was a reasonable verdict, every aspect of the case was changed, according to the case record and the appellate court was in accordance with the law decision of W.W. The trial case was not permanent. inheritance advocates near Alipur lawyer