The suit was formally ruled that the plaintiffs filed for the Section 42 declaration, claiming that they were the owner of the suit property and that the legacy amendment was against the law, in relation to the existence of proof of validity. At the time of the death of the deceased, the only survivor was his brother (defendant's foreclosure) and defendant's predecessor died during his life, in the form of oral evidence and oral evidence from both parties. Was submitted, documentary evidence was needed to support the plaintiff's claim and the death of the plaintiffs related to the documentary evidence The entries were presented in additional evidence and were also displayed in the defendant's statement of the defendants, whose certified copies were not admissible in accordance with the evidence as the Secretary had also issued them. Union Council and those who were not eligible to be certified copies of the record issued according to legal evidence, 1984 the preparation and identification of such evidence, the original record as well as the record keeper. Such evidence was important and such documentary evidence was not important when the defense witness appeared and made statements regarding the death of the deceased. , The evidence was sufficient to know that those documents did not match the original record contained in the death registration certificate in the Union Council, and the appellate court denied that copies of the same variations were in relation to the determination of the date of death. There was no direct evidence. The investigations into the killings below the two courts that followed the death of the lawyers presented by the plaintiffs do not prove any evidence.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
