HAFIZ TASSADUQ HUSSAIN versus MUHAMMAD DIN THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
Section 12 law evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 17, 72 and 79 contract document for selling proof of execution, the evidence filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of the evidence filed by the plaintiff was excluded on the basis that they were present Failed Judge and two minor witnesses in the evidence of the execution of the sale agreement were retained by the lower appellate court and the High Court, and the sale of the immovable property (if there was no conditional sale) was finalized in an absolute title. There was a transfer and ownership of the property to the shopkeeper, while the sale agreement was to achieve the purpose of the sale in the future and It was for all intents and purposes related to the parties' future liabilities under which the sales contract / contract was regularly covered and covered. Article 17 of the Law of Martyrdom, 1984 was intended to prove and substantiate the document by some number of witnesses. Evidence of this was to eliminate the possibility of fraud and to create false evidence and to fabricate a false conspiracy to substantiate it, and thus the Legislature wisely established a section of documents that would fall under Article 17. For instrumental compatibility, the law was described in Article 17 of the Martyrdom, 1984. For the purpose of proof of such document, the testimony must be verified in accordance with the requirement of Article 7979 of the Convention of Marriage 1984, 1984, 1984, 1984, in which the certification was absolute and necessary according to its requirement. Had to be examined, otherwise it was not to be proved and used as evidence and this principle of law was in accordance with the principle where the law was to be used in a particular way.
