Find a Lawyer

MST. NAZEERAN BIBI versus MST. HAJJAN BIBI

Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), contrary to the evidence of contradiction in the proof of section 115, contradicts that the plaintiff and the plaintiff were the daughters of the landowner of the suit land from two different wives, the plaintiff alleging two Tamilak changes. , Of which one was approved. In the years 1980, and the second year, 1993, the plaintiff claimed in favor of the plaintiff that both of these changes were the result of fraud, only to lose her father's inheritance, the deceased owner was weak and of poor health. There was a man who had been staying in bed for a long time and was working with the defendant, in whose favor the defendant's statements were confirmed and one of his witnesses testified that the place was about. There were material contradictions where the latter was approved, the suit was dismissed by the trial court in 1993 but the appellate court allowed the appeal. The plaintiff's case was void for sixteen long years, the separation of the land. The defendant's right was not challenged by the plaintiff by the preliminary injunction, so there was no doubt that the defendant's owner Given the defendant's incredible position in the 1980s, the reliability of the innovation depended on it presented to the Patwari and Revenue Officer, the credibility and accuracy of the subsequent changes approved in 1993. To prove that the plaintiff did not present the two revenue to the plaintiffs, which he did in support of his claim, such evidence presented by the defendant. Was subjected to negative intervention against it. The change about Tamlak and the resulting result could not be convinced and the lower appellate. female advocates from Dandot lawyer