Find a Lawyer

MST. RASHIDAN BIBI versus GHULAM GHAUS

Proof of Sale Sale sale mutation The plaintiff, the plaintiff's sisters, requested that the land they inherited was not sold by them by the defendant and that the brother received the impression of his thumb so as to identify him. Identity Cards should be prepared which were the customs of the respective village. The alleged variation witness stated that the defendant stated that in connection with the conversion, it was stated that the testimony of the defendant separating the evidence from the sale was removed by the other witness in the mutation. Consideration was not approved, nor was light presented on record by the plaintiff examining the Patwari or Revenue Officer so as to prove the mutation in question. There was no material evidence on record to prove the variation of the sale, but the appellate court proceeded on the wrong premise that the plaintiff's thumb impressions were proved on the change, only the thumb impression was applied to the thumb impression. The mutation name cannot be per se, it is regarded as the plaintiff of the defendant as the defendant's sisters were justified in restoring their reliance on the defendants and the influence of their thumbs on the latter. The appellate order was set aside by the appellate court demanding that the appellate court have committed material misconduct in the jurisdiction \ r \ n \ r \ n jobs for advocates from Chaman lawyer