The plaintiff for the Section 42 declaration was the plaintiff's wife when an unknown change was affirmed in her favor which was confirmed in accordance with the law. The plaintiff's case and the evidence contradicted itself. No written agreement was presented and the best evidence was withheld which would be against the plaintiff. It was not a matter of transferring the evidence against the present interested plaintiff. A party in the sale conversion proceedings but a third party who has been challenged by the same claimant will have to hear a specific case for the details of the oral agreement to sell, giving the witness's name, date and place name. Where it was said that the contract was in place but not in the plaintiff such details were available The plaintiff was required to prove his ownership and was then required to prove that the infringement certificate was against the law and his Declaration of ownership rights was not binding on its rights before the declaration of rights existed This may be done through them and not create new rights by way of interpretation plaintiff prayed. In the present case, a declaration can be made in favor of the suit property in the declaration when the property of the suit was never transferred to the plaintiff by the original owners, but in favor of the plaintiff by defamation. The plaintiff was unable to prove that if there was an agreement in his favor, the plaintiff could have a case of a fictitious transaction if his wife paid the money at the time of confirmation of the change.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
