Find a Lawyer

MST. RASOOL BIBI versus GHULAM RASOOL

In the Property Act (I82 of I82), Section 41 Civil Procedure Code (VV 1908), Sections 114, 115 and O XLVII, R1, the plaintiff's request was that both defendants (one of them being the brother of the plaintiff) gift. Was denying his title on the ground that the plaintiffs were alienated on the basis of two variations that he had claimed separately by the plaintiff in his favor that the two defendants had not competed, and the evidence presented But had only exchanged part of the suit land with the claimant's brother. The Bona Fried buyer has a trial to exclude the competing trial. The correctness of the High Court remained up to the record that it was stated that the first respondent was on sale and there was no gift, while the second was in favor of the defendant (plaintiff brother). The first plaintiff by gift was in his area of suit land when the plaintiff appeared in the witness box and denied the gift, then the second plaintiff (brother of the plaintiff) had to prove the gift, but he did not choose to appear before the witness. Whether the court and the contentious defendant's testimony in exercising jurisdiction to review the High Court only prosecuted the amended decree and injunction against the other defendants. famous supreme court advocate from Shogram lawyer