For the declaration of the authenticity of the gift gift component, the plaintiff sought the declaration with the impression that he was the owner of the suit land on the basis of the gift proceedings implemented in his favor, and this property was also owned by him at the time. Was delivered. The plaintiff accused himself of owning the suit land based on the gift he claimed, but did not provide any details as to when and where the gift was made, there was no shortage of evidence. The gift is true and genuine. And the evidence of the author of the alleged gift acts was not enough to relieve the burden on the plaintiff of proving the gift and gift of a Muslim, but when there was no action in relation to such gift. If performed, then the mere proof of the process of registering the same compulsory entry will not, in the circumstances, be sufficient to exclude those burdens unless the transaction involved is substantiated only by trust and confidence. ? Valid Evidence The basic components of a genuine gift, such as the offer, acceptance, and delivery of the possession of the property under the gift, were to be proved by the deed. Was. And when the first suit was cited for filing a gift suit for the first time, it would not be enough to ignore the real heritage of the questioned land.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
