Evidence of anonymous transactions for declaration of section 42 and the Act of Limitation Act (IX of 1908), section 3 and Article 120 are the brother of the plaintiff's predecessor, claiming that he has built a suit house in the name of the accused. Because it has contributed to its official liabilities and costs. Defendants' evidence of the construction of the suit house issued in the name of defendant's predecessor on 31 12 1963 was never challenged by the plaintiff defendants during their lives until 4 1987, when they filed the present case. So the maximum time for six years was available to the plaintiff to file a lawsuit. For anonymous transactions, but he remained silent for more than 24 years, thus, defendants were not punctually punished in support of his claim, nor were his parents, who were alive or were sued, The other sisters presented a shared life story. Plaintiff's liability will not be proved by the plaintiffs' plaintiffs' claims cannot be ignored by the plaintiffs' oral claims in the case of a suit house sale deed. SE Defendants' predecessors may prove joint residence in the suit house in the name of voters' list, national ID cards, ration cards, plaintiffs' employment letters, but their title could not be proved, evidence on record suggests that the late suit. The house was allotted, all of its liabilities were paid and the sale contract under it was made only in favor of it. The plaintiff failed to prove the essential components of the anonymous transaction that amounted to 2/3 shares. The owner of the house had the suit dismissed \ r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
