Sections 2 (d) and 13 before the occupation of the land for better management were simultaneously decided in favor of the umpire by the trial court and the lower appellate court. The fact that Val was considered for better ground management was not praised in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-Impression Act of 1987, because it could be different in every case and the reality of all time to come. The question will be. Clearly charged and subsequently it was proved that good management was charged but not for agricultural purposes, but the nature of the better management was not disclosed as a requirement for a dispute transaction. / The vendor failed to elaborate and did not say a word about the exchange, nature. And the purpose for which it was achieved, as without it, cannot be justified by the fact that it was acquired for better management. The defendant / seller's legal statement was neither endorsed by any witness nor by any document that was presented on record to show the reasons for such exchange so that it could be excluded from the sale transaction. To be taken. Both the courts had properly appreciated the evidence presented on the record and came to reasonable and legal conclusions. The decisions passed by the two courts below were not subject to any kind of illegal interference or material misconduct which led to the demand for intervention by the High Court Review.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
