MUHAMMAD USMAN THROUGH ATTORNEY versus MUHAMMAD IKRAM
Evidence of a fraudulent transaction in Ben Ben was part of a factual discovery by the courts below the parties and the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit house and alleged that the defendant had purchased it in his name. , While the plaintiff sent from abroad. There was no available evidence of litigation by the trial and appellate court, which was considered by any of the plaintiff's financial means, and there was no evidence that any bank draft was allegedly sent to the defendant. And especially not so. At the time the bank drafts were sent, the argument was then presented to the vendor as a defense witness who supported the plaintiff's version of the defendant's original title deed by the defendant, as well as a title by the defendant. Was presented. Based on the evidence contained on the record, including the witnesses, the courts below were properly found by the defendant on the record, which was additionally constructed by the defendant, it was proved that he was in possession of the suit house. And he was receiving rent from his employer on the basis of self-occupation. Interference with concurrent decisions passed by two courts below C r \ n \ r bottom n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
