Article QQ was declared by the title court through the 126 suit title court but the said trial court order was issued by the appellate court which stated that it was proved It is alleged that the plaintiff had. According to the property for a long time and initially his father Swat was in the possession of the plaintiff since the time of the former ruler of the plaintiff although he did not show the realty of his property, but it is a recognized position that the property is actually the former. Ruler owned. Swat, which gave the same gift and was usually done by oral or oral means, in the area of the suit property, most people had nothing to do with the origin of the property except for long occupation. I should have shown to the defendants that the plaintiff was in his possession though. The suit was not owned by the property but as required under Article 126 of the Convention of Evidence, as the 1984 plaintiff being the owner of the suit property, the order of the appellant was set aside and the plaintiff's case decided. Gone, revision is allowed in the circumstances
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
