Find a Lawyer

MST. SAKINA BIBI KAUSAR versus MST. ROBINA KAUSAR

OX, R 2 & O VII, Section 11 suit for statement of R 11 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), statement 424, recording the proper procedure to change the gift in favor of the claimant in relation to his father's land Challenged and it was alleged that his father was an old man, a permanent patient and still unable to walk and speak, and for a long time he was suffering from severe illness and hence the right of the defendant. I was the result of a gift change, fraud and misrepresentation and that through it he lost his father's claim and his father's father appeared to the plaintiff and recorded his best statement. Raya, in which he stated that he had voluntarily gifted his real estate in favor of his daughter. Defendant offered him in return for his services, and on the statement of both plaintiff and defendant's father, it is better if the trial court and the appellate court, both at the bottom of the trial court, once said. The statement was presented in the case, but the plaintiff was not given the opportunity to set up his case for his father's illness and disability; a better statement under OX, R 2, did not prove the CPC Because it was not even listed in the presence of the plaintiff. Her father did not get a chance to examine who made a good statement. The trial court had violated the Code of Civil Code in a normal and reasonable manner and excluded the case without regard to the provisions of OVII, R 11, CPC. Where the plaintiff did not disclose the reason for the action, the plaintiff was responsible for dismissing and rejecting. The judgment and order passed by both the courts were set aside criminal advocate from Jalal Pur Priwala lawyer