MST. SHAFQAT PARVEEN versus MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR AMJAD
Section 42, Article 2 (185 ()) of the Constitution of Pakistan claims on the basis of the gift (HABA) claim of ownership of the suit property that he was the owner of the suit property as he was gifted. At the time of her marriage, the donor (her mother-in-law); that the documentary evidence in the form of a marriage and stamp paper was ignored by the courts below, and that the plaintiff had been on the suit property since her marriage. Was captured, one of the defendant's witnesses, who was also his witness. In his cross-examination of the marriage contract, the donor confessed that the donor lived in the suit property until his death; another plaintiff's witness admitted in his cross-examination that the death of the donor was in the suit property. I confessed that at the time of the donor's life, he had never tried to change his name to his home by a registered deed, two donor sons who appeared as witnesses denied it. That the suit property was gifted to the plaintiff and he claimed that the donor wanted to make a change. En All the children of the donor handed over their shares in favor of the youngest son jw.org ur en The marriage courts rightly rejected allegations of complete admission to the suit property But it was understood that it was later and collectively entered into because the plaintiff's husband did not have it and it was against the common man. Imagine that a father who had six children could lose them all and give the suit property gifts, which were the only family home. Because the marriage column did not have any affiliate endorsement from this alleged donor.
