Find a Lawyer

ROOH-UL-AMIN versus GUL AHMAD ALIAS JAM KHAN

Articles 42 and 54 of the Civil Code (v. 1908), section 115, the suit for claim and permanent injunction were that he was entitled to 1/2 of his inheritance in the interests of his predecessor and the defendants had no rights. was not. The property left behind the deceased plaintiff was also claimed to deprive the plaintiffs of their legitimate share in order to grant a permanent injunction to the defendants in any way to move or keep the suit property away. Prayed The defendants declined to claim that any of the defendants had purchased the suit property. On behalf of his brother, who was the father of the defendants on the basis of the sale agreement and the plaintiffs did not have any concern with him, even though he had presented fifteen witnesses in proof of the claim, he was unable to establish them. Satisfactory claim that the evidence produced by the defendants was inconsistent, inconsistent and did not deserve credibility. The basic principle of civil law was that the plaintiff had to hear his case from his own evidence and he could not take advantage of the weaknesses present in the defendant's case, whatever the legal right of any court depending on the existence of the facts. Or wanting to make a decision about the liability, which they insist upon, must prove that the existing record of the facts revealed that the claimant had purchased the share of his brother who had made the sale pledge. Based on the plaintiff's father, the decisions passed by the courts were inconceivable, legal, factual and circumstantial. The facts or law recorded by the court of affairs in which the case was not sought by the High Court female advocates from Khanqah Sharif lawyer