Section 42 was dismissed by the trial court for declaring the plaintiff's trial, but the appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff that the plaintiff challenged the record of income records and Did not challenge specific changes, registered sales actions or specifics. Revenue record entries; and he only prayed for the title declaration on the ground that after almost a hundred years, the plaintiffs challenged the registration of rights and the validity of the entries in the case, The defendant's claim of adverse possession of the suit land was not fatal. It is sufficient to decide the case against them on the basis of such claim, when an oral claim against a right, when it is made, was not binding on the party against the record when it was against the record. It was not the party's obligation to admit such facts. The plaintiffs did not prove how the names of the defendants / forerunners came to Jam Bondi because after 100 years the owners were not obliged to disclose how the names of their predecessors came to the Jambi plaintiff under the law. ? Prove that the defendant's predecessor's name was wrongly entered in Jambandi, which he failed to do, the plaintiff did not prove that the Air Case and the defendants did not benefit from the weakness of the High Court by the Appellate Court. Setting the order, allowing the case to be reviewed, dismissed
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
