Variable principles of the provisions of Articles 42 and Title 54 and the Decree of the Decree were filed in the plaintiffs' suit claiming to be the owner of the land and it was alleged that the defendants were interfering with their legitimate possession. The trial court ruled in favor of the case, but the lower appellate court dismissed it. The plaintiff's legitimate version was contradictory because according to the plaintiff, a deceased brother of the plaintiff's brother had given the plaintiff a share of the barren land on the condition that the plaintiff had to pay Rs 10,000 and his expenses. The wings were to be erected. The defendant had lived according to the terms of the defendant for the duration of his deceased brother, but after that the suit was not authorized to be rejected and the defendants were required to file a suit for specific performance of the contract. The lower appellate court properly appreciated the material available on record. The conclusions drawn, which were not open to exceptions and conclusions, deserve the appellate court's GS weight. The High Court refused to interfere with the decision and the lower appellate court amendment order was dismissed.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
