Find a Lawyer

QASIM ALI versus SHER MUHAMMAD

Trans42 Property Property Property Act Act IV of 1882, Section 454 West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Section 42 to testify as provocation bureaucratic. As the non-production of the Revenue Officer was proved, the Impact Claimant approved the sale in return. The defendant dismissed the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff on the basis of the fraud, but the appellate court allowed the appeal and the litigation to prove the sale transaction through litigation. , The defendant had to prove the fact of the sale. The inclusion of the entries in the next clause could not prove its authenticity, nor could anyone avail themselves of the defendant's liberty to prove a sale transaction, which the plaintiff had initially denied. Compulsory payment of land and payment of land was not proved. The defendant could not be placed on the shoulders of the plaintiff for proof of the record sale transaction by Barden, who was alleged and claimed by the plaintiff party who confessed that The transaction itself has to be proved, the emission to submit to the petitioner, which confirmed the mutation and Patwari was to affect the sale transaction issue in the suit, was not proved. ? Court refuses to take exception to lower appellate court's ruling and ruling immigration advocates phone number from Karak lawyer